Dilwale 1 102-WP-14454 -17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 102 WRIT PETITION NO. 14454 OF 2017 Asmita Ankush Tarate VERSUS Divisional Joint Registrar Co Operative Societies Nashik And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. L. H. Kawale h/f Mr. Suryawanshi Kamlakar J. AGP for Respondents: Mr. R. B. Dhaware Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Narwade Narayan B. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 18.03.2026 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16th September 2015 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision Application No. 51.2014, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner along with application for condonation of delay came to be dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for condonation of delay was filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar and the same was argued. It is submitted that without deciding the application for condonation of delay, the authority proceeded to consider the merits of the revision and ultimately rejected the application for condonation of delay. According to him, the Divisional Joint Registrar has committed an error in deciding the matter in such a manner. 2026:BHC-AUG:11979 Dilwale 2 102-WP-14454 -17.odt 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 supports the impugned order. It is submitted that there was delay in filing the revision and while considering the aspect of delay, the Divisional Joint Registrar has also adverted to the merits of the matter. It is further submitted that the petitioners were heard and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Divisional Joint Registrar has specifically recorded that arguments were heard on the application for condonation of delay. Once the matter was heard only on the aspect of delay, the authority ought not to have proceeded to decide the revision on merits without first condoning the delay. The revision application has thus been dismissed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing on merits. In view of the findings recorded in the impugned order itself, interference is warranted. Hence, I proceed to pass following order: ORDER (I) The petition is partly allowed. (ii) The order dated 16th September 2015 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision Application No. 51.2014 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner is restored to the file. Dilwale 3 102-WP-14454 -17.odt (iv) The Divisional Joint Registrar shall first decide the application for condonation of delay and, if the delay is condoned, shall thereafter decide the revision on its own merits, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. (v) All contentions of the parties are kept open. (vi) The interim order, if any, shall continue till the decision of the revision application. (vii) The revisional authority shall decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE