Shree Mukund Sahakari Gruhrachana Sastha Maryadit Throu. Its Chairman Suresh Nageshwar Tapaswi vs Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Society Pune and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shree Mukund Sahakari Gruhrachana Sastha Maryadit Throu. Its Chairman Suresh Nageshwar Tapaswi vs Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Society Pune and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b); Revision Application No. 110 of 2015 restored to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar, with directions to grant an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and decide the revision afresh, strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revisional Authority's refusal to restore the revision application — rested solely on the perceived futility arising from conferment of membership/implementation of the impugned order rather than on any defect in the delay explanation — was legally sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

Mere execution or implementation of an impugned order does not render the main proceeding infructuous; execution is relevant only while considering interim protection or stay and does not determine whether the order itself is lawful — the legality and correctness of an order must be examined on its own merits by the superior authority, failing which every order could be insulated from scrutiny by hurried implementation.

Ratio / Principle

The Revisional Authority erred in refusing restoration on the ground of perceived futility; such an approach is legally unsustainable where no finding was recorded that the explanation for delay was false or unacceptable.

Key takeaways

The explanation for the short delay was plausible, supported by the record, and caused no shown prejudice; the refusal to condone the delay and restore the revision amounted to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Revisional Authority, and the restoration application deserved to be allowed.ratio¶para 6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cooperative society — restoration of revision application — revision dismissed for non-prosecution on 29 March 2019; restoration application filed 18 July 2019 explaining a 28-day delay with specific dates (dismissal copy received around 22 May 2019; society's advocate unavailable during summer vacation). Revisional Authority rejected condonation not because the explanation was false or unacceptable, but because membership had already been conferred during the pendency, rendering restoration futile. Held (Amit Borkar, J.): mere execution or implementation of an impugned order does not render the main proceeding infructuous — execution is relevant only to interim protection or stay, and the legality of the order must be examined on its own merits by the superior authority, otherwise every order could be insulated from scrutiny by hurried implementation; refusal to condone a short, plausible, record-supported delay without prejudice, amounting to failure to exercise vested jurisdiction, was unsustainable. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b); Revision Application No. 110 of 2015 restored to the Divisional Joint Registrar to be decided afresh after hearing all concerned, in accordance with law and on merits.

32-wp15999-2024&2284-2020 final.doc

MPBalekar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.15999 OF 2024

Shree Mukund Shahakari Gruhrachna Sanstha Maryadit, Thr. its Chairman, Suresh Nageshwar Tapaswi

… Petitioner

V/s.

Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society, Pune and Ors. … Respondents

Mr. S. S. Panchpor for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Singh along with Dominic B., Ms. Ashlesha Suryawanshi, J. Jadhav i/by Mr. A. Nevagi for the Respondent No.3.

Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the State – Respondent No. 1.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2025

P.C.:

Rule is made returnable forthwith.

The challenge in this writ petition arises from an order passed by the Revisional Authority rejecting the petitioner society’s application for restoration of its revision application. The revision had earlier been dismissed for non-prosecution on 29 March 2019. The petitioner does not dispute the dismissal. The grievance is confined to the refusal to restore the revision despite an explanation placed on record.

The record shows that the petitioner moved an application for restoration on 18 July 2019. In paragraph 2 of that application,

1

32-wp15999-2024&2284-2020 final.doc

the society explained the delay. It stated that the copy of the dismissal order was received around 22 May 2019. It further stated that during the summer vacation the advocate of the society was not available. After the vacation, the office bearers contacted the advocate and requested him to prepare the restoration application. On this basis, the society sought condonation of a delay of 28 days. This explanation is specific. It is supported by dates. It is not vague or evasive.

The Revisional Authority rejected the application for condonation of delay on a different ground. It held that during the pendency of the proceedings, membership had already been conferred. On that reasoning, the authority concluded that no useful purpose would be served by restoring the revision. The authority did not record a finding that the explanation for delay was false or unacceptable. The rejection rested only on the perceived futility of the revision.

This approach is legally unsustainable. Mere execution or implementation of the impugned order does not render the main proceeding infructuous. Execution becomes relevant while considering interim protection or stay. It does not determine whether the order itself is lawful. The legality and correctness of an order must be examined on its own merits by the superior authority. If this principle is ignored, every order can be insulated from scrutiny by hurried implementation. Such a consequence finds no support in law. Therefore, the Revisional Authority erred in refusing restoration on this ground.

2

32-wp15999-2024&2284-2020 final.doc

In these circumstances, the explanation for delay deserved consideration on its own merits. The delay was short. The reasons were plausible and supported by the record. No prejudice was shown to have been caused by the delay. The refusal to condone the delay and restore the revision amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Revisional Authority. The restoration application, therefore, deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Revision Application No. 110 of 2015 stands restored to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar. The authority shall grant an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and decide the revision afresh, strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

3