2025:HHC:29638 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 384 of 2019 Decided on : 01.09.2025 Sh. Nitin Thakur …Petitioner Versus Joint Registrar (Credit) Co-Operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Parveen Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 12.06.2019, passed by learned Joint Registrar (Credit) Co-Operative Society, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petition under 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29638 Section 94(2)(b) of the The Himachal Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1968, against Office Order dated 03.05.2014 and 09.04.2014 as well as against Resolution dated 31.03.2014, stands dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the contents of the application as well as the impugned order and the record of the learned Registrar. 3. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the petitioner assailed the approval of the appointment of the private respondents as Assistant Secretary, which appointment was offered to them on 03.05.2014 and 09.04.2014. According to the petitioner, the appointment of the said two persons was arbitrary as they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria and appointment was made in a hush-hush manner without intimating other eligible persons of the process of filling up the posts. The Revision Petition was filed in the month of November, 2017 along-with an application for condonation of delay. This application was dismissed by the learned Authority in terms of the impugned order by assigning the following 3 2025:HHC:29638 reasons:- “I have gone through the provisions of law and the pleadings of the parties alongwith record. The act provides for limitation of 90 days from the date of knowledge and the present petition has been filed on 12.12.2017 and the record clearly shows that the petitioner had obtained the required information through RTI from the Respondent No.1 on 02.02.2017. Thereafter, the time spent by the petitioner in filing the present petition after a gap of more than ten months is unexplained and can not be condoned merely on the basis that the petitioner took this time of ten months for engaging and consultation his counsel. The mandatory provision of law does not allow condonation of delay beyond the specified time limit i.e. 90 days without any plausible explanation and justifying the delay of each day. I find no substance in the submissions and pleadings of the petitioner to allow the application for condonation of delay on the grounds stated therein and argued during the course of hearing. In view of the above observations made herein above, the instant application for condonation under section 5 of the limitation act being devoid of any merits 4 2025:HHC:29638 and substance is dismissed. Accordingly, the main petition preferred under section 94 of the Act, being rendered hopelessly time barred as it has been preferred after an unexplained delay of more than ten months considering it from the date of knowledge i.e. 02.02.2017, (whereas the actual delay in filing the revision petition is more than three years and seven months from the date of cause of action dated 09.04.2014 Annexure A-11 of Respondent No.1). Therefore, the present main revision petition is dismissed accordingly being hopelessly time barred in view of the provisions of the section 94 of the Act, without going into the merits of the case. The applications if any also stand disposed off.” 4. This Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the case, the order passed by the Authority calls for no interference. 5. First of all, there is no explanation given in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as to why the approval of the appointments of the private respondents was not challenged by the petitioner within the period of limitation as from the date of the approval of appointments. 5 2025:HHC:29638 Petitioner assailed the same after a period of more than five years. The reason given in the application for delay is that when he came to know of the illegal appointments somewhere in the month of August, 2014, he filed an application with the Authority and kept on waiting for the response but when no response came, then after about one year, he filed applications under the Right to Information Act and during the years 2015 and 2016, he could not access the material, that is to say, proper material to assail the appointments under the Right to Information Act. It is further averred in the application that when he got the proper information on 02.02.2017, thereafter he filed the Revision Petition. 6. The explanation given in the application does not convince the Court. The justification given as from the month of 2014 up to February, 2017 is bald and not substantiated by any material on record. Not only this, as has also been observed by the Authority below, there is no explanation as to why even after the receipt of the Communication on 02.02.2017, the petitioner thereafter waited for about nine months to approach the Court. Therefore, undoubtedly as delay in filing the Revision 6 2025:HHC:29638 Petition was not properly explained and on the other hand, with the aflux of time and the expiry of limitation, as rights stand crystallized in favour of the private respondents, there indeed was no merit in the said application. 7. Therefore, as this Court finds no perversity in impugned order dated 12.06.2019, passed by learned Joint Registrar (Credit) Co-Operative Society, H.P., the same is upheld and this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 01, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)