1 WP-5014-2022.doc Rajshree IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5014 of 2022 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.30773 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.31709 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5014 OF 2022 Chandrakant Bhiva Manjrekar … Petitioner V/s. Adarsh Nagar Shsramic CHS Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents Mr.Ajit Kenjale a/w Azharuddin Khan for the Petitioner. Mr.Ankur Kalel for Respondent No.1. Ms.V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for State. Ms.Sana Khan i/b Ms.Smruti Jadhav for Respondent Nos.5 to 7 and 9 to 12. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : OCTOBER 16, 2025 P.C.: 1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The Petitioner is a Managing Committee Member of the Co-operative Housing Society. An enquiry was initiated against him under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Respondents No. 5 to 10 are members of the same Society. The record clearly shows that these Respondents were present during the enquiry proceedings under Section 88. This is mentioned in the preface of the order passed by the Authorized 1 1 WP-5014-2022.doc Officer. The order further shows that the report of the Authorized Officer dated 6 August 2008 was duly communicated to the Chairman and Secretary of the Society. 3. Respondents No. 5 to 10, who were dissatisfied with the findings in that report, filed an appeal under Section 152 of the Act on 14 September 2017. They also filed an application seeking condonation of delay of about ten years. The only ground mentioned in their application was that they were unaware of the Authorized Officer’s report and that they came to know about it only when an enquiry under Section 89A was conducted on 3 August 2017. The Appellate Authority, by the impugned order, accepted this explanation and condoned the delay solely on that basis. 4. However, this reasoning does not stand to scrutiny. The record itself contradicts the claim that Respondents No. 5 to 10 were unaware of the enquiry or its outcome. The preface of the Authorized Officer’s order clearly records their presence during the enquiry proceedings. Once they were present at the enquiry, they cannot later claim ignorance of the final order arising out of it. Furthermore, the communication dated 6 August 2008 from the Deputy Registrar shows that the report under Section 88 was forwarded to the Society through its Secretary. Since Respondents No. 5 to 10 were members of the Society and participated in the enquiry, it is reasonable to infer that they were aware of the report. 5. The explanation furnished for such an inordinate delay of ten years is, therefore, not credible. It lacks bona fides. No other 2 1 WP-5014-2022.doc cause or circumstance has been shown to justify the delay. Condonation of delay is not a matter of routine. The law requires that sufficient cause must be shown, supported by material that inspires confidence. Mere assertion of ignorance, when contradicted by record, cannot be treated as sufficient cause. The Appellate Authority failed to examine the record and accepted the explanation mechanically, without testing its truth or plausibility. 6. In these circumstances, the delay of nearly ten years in filing the appeal under Section 152 could not have been condoned. The impugned order allowing the condonation application is therefore unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. Since the application for condonation of delay has been rejected, the appeal itself cannot survive. The consequential order passed in the main appeal automatically falls. Hence, the said order is quashed and set aside. All interim applications stand disposed of accordingly. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 3