Aparna Akshay Deshpande Alias Aparna Omprakash Khake v. Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:33921 1 929 WP 3572-2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 929 WRIT PETITION NO. 3572 OF 2022 APARNA AKSHAY DESHPANDE ALIAS APARNA OMPRAKASH KHAKE

VERSUS

DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Kamlakar J. Suryawashi - Advocate for Petitioner Mr. V.S. Badakh - AGP for Respondents, State ...

CORAM

: SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

DATE :

03.12.2025 PER COURT :

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad, in Misc. Application No.56/2018, whereby the application filed for seeking condonation of delay of about two (2) years came to be rejected. 3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in application filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar, the petitioner had explained the delay, but without considering the explanation tendered by the petitioner, the application came to be turned down. He further submits that he is neither a borrower nor a guarantor.

2 929 WP 3572-2022.odt 4.

I have gone through the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Aurangabad. As far as the delay is concerned, it is expected from the authority to adopt a liberal approach while considering an application for condonation of delay.

5.

I find that the delay is properly explained. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.

6.

In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad, is quashed and set aside, and the delay in filing the revision is condoned, subject to costs of Rs.25,000/- (rupees Twenty Five Thousands only), to be paid to the Bar Association Library, Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad. The cost to be paid within a period of two (2) weeks from today.

7.

It is made clear that this Court has not given any finding on merits of the matter. It is for the authority to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE Pooja Kale/