Vasantrao Naik Macchimaar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Through Its President, Yavatmal v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Commissioner Of Fisheries, Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION Vasantrao Naik Macchimar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Gahuli Heti through its President, District Yavatmal ....PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

State of Maharashtra through its Commissioner of Fisheries, Taraporewala, Department of Fisheries, Netaji Subhash Marg, Churney Road, Mumbai.

2.

State of Maharashtra through its Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Fisheries), Mumbai 3.

State of Maharashtra, through Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Marketing, Dairy and Fisheries), Yavatmal, District Yavatmal 4.

State of Maharashtra, through its Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal 5.

Mandev Matsyavyavasaya Sahakari Sanstha, Hiwari, through its President, Hiwari, Tahsil District Yavatmal .... RESPONDENTS ______________________________________________________________ Mr. A.M. Ghare, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. N.R. Rode, AGP for respondents 1 to 4/State. Mr. S.K. Tambde, counsel for respondent 5.

______________________________________________________________ CORAM :

ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 19 th APRIL,

ORAL JUDGMENT :

The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 19.11.2019, whereby the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Fisheries), Mumbai, has condoned the delay of 8 years and 11 months in preferring appeal under section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

2.

One of the submissions canvased is that the petitioner was not noticed.

3.

In the affidavit, which the State filed, the assertion is that the petitioner did not appear, though served. 4.

In view of the said assertion, this Court thought it appropriate to seek the assistance of the deponent who is present in the Court.

5.

It has now transpired that there is no acknowledgment of service available on record although according to the officer concerned, there is an entry in the outward register of having issued the notice. 6.

I am not inclined to delve deeper.

7.

It would be appropriate if the order impugned is quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. 8.

The parties shall appear before the respondent 2 on 9.5.2022.

9.

No separate notice shall be issued by the respondent 2. 10.

The respondent 2 shall decide the issue of condonation of delay within two weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. 11.

Petition is disposed of.

JUDGE belkhede RAVINDRA SURESHRAO P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge