Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12521 OF 2026 Ajit Shrikant Kale And Anr. … Petitioners Versus State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary And Ors. … Respondents Mr. Rajendra Sorankar i/b Mr. Shashank Thatte, Mr. Yuvraj Takale, Ms. Chaitali Jadhav for Petitioners. [ Mr. Bhavin Gada a/w Mr. Sameer J. Chitnis, Mr. Omkar A. Dandekar i/b M/s. Chitnis & Co. for Respondent No.3. [ Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for Respondent/State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 22 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C. : 1) The Petition challenges Order dated 5 August 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai allowing the application for condonation of delay filed by Respondent No.3-Society in Revision Application No. 518 of 2025. 2) It appears that the Predecessors in interest of the Petitioners were occupants of two rooms in the old chawl structure. Upon redevelopment of the chawl, it is the case of the Society that in lieu of the two rooms bearing Nos. 6 and 7, only one large flat bearing E-5 ___Page No. 1 of 7 ___ 22 September 2026 MANE SONALI DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2026.09.24 15:21:35 +0530 Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx allotted to the occupants of the two rooms in the chawl. However, in the two independent share certificates were issued by the society in the year 1982. The society wants to undertake further process of redevelopment and has decided to convene a meeting for cancellation of one out of the two share certificates. The Petitioners got aggrieved by proposed action of the society and approached the Deputy Registrar. After conducting a hearing, the Deputy Registrar has ruled by Order dated 29 July 2024 that the society cannot remove a member by cancelling share certificate on the basis of mere decision of the General Body Meeting. The Deputy Registrar had granted liberty to the society to take appropriate steps in the matter. 3) It appears that the society did not immediately take any steps to challenge Order dated 29 July 2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar. After a delay of above 475 days, the society lodged a Revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar and filed application for condonation of delay. After conducting the hearing of the application for condonation of delay, the Deputy Registrar closed not only the application for condonation of delay but also the main Revision for decision vide Order dated 30 June 2026. Petitioners were required to rush to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 9675 of 2026 expressing an apprehension that the Divisional Joint Registrar was likely to decide the main Revision Application without first deciding the issue of condonation of delay. Accordingly, on 3 August 2026, this Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 9675 of 2026 and directed the Divisional Joint Registrar to pronounce an order only on the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 5 August 2026, the Divisional Joint ___Page No. 2 of 7 ___ 22 September 2026 Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx Registrar, has allowed the application for condonation of delay and the said order is subject matter of challenge in the present Petition. 4) I have heard Mr. Sorankar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners, Mr. Gada, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and Mr. Patil, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. 5) Perusal of the application for condonation of delay filed by Respondent No. 3-Society would indicate that only following justification was pleaded for condoning the inordinate delay of 475 days. 3. We state that there is a delay of approx. 475 days to file this instant Revision Appeal and Application for Interim Reliefs, from the date of Impugned Order, excluding 30 days grace period of time to file the Revision Appeal as contemplated in the Acts; and excluding the time of receipt of the Impugned Order. 4. We state that the delay is due to time consuming process of taking decisions and the monitory concerns as the Applicant had no adequate funds to expend the cost of such litigation. Now the Applicant is compelled to do it for the sake of interest and welfare of all the members of the Applicant. 6) The application was also defective, as it did not contain any specific prayer for condonation of delay. In paragraph 5 of the application, it was pleaded thus: 5. We, through this Application, humbly and respectfully submit that the delay be condoned as in the event, the delay is not condoned, the Applicant may be subjected to irrevocable and irreparable loss and /or damage as the entire case of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is based on illegal, unwarranted and untenable demands in law, which are on the false, frivolous and baseless grounds. ___Page No. 3 of 7 ___ 22 September 2026 Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx 7) Ignoring the absence of a formal prayer seeking condonation of delay, it is seen that the Respondent No. 3-Society did not plead any valid justification for condonation of delay 475 days. It pleaded vague justifications of (i) time consuming process of taking decisions (ii) monitory considerations. 8) The Divisional Joint Registrar has proceeded to allow the application for condonation of delay by recording following findings: The Applicant society in the present case mainly raises the grounds that the delay is due to time consuming process of taking decision and monitory concerns as the Applicant had no adequate funds to expend the cost of such litigation. The impugned order was passed by the Respondent No. 1 on or about 29/07/2024. There is delay of approximately 475 days to file instant Revision Application. On the other hand, the Respondents No. 2 & 3 mainly raise the grounds that the filing of the above Revision Application is an absolute abuse of process of law apart from being filed after a considerable unexplained long delay of 475 days and that too without any application seeking condonation of delay in filing the same. On the aforesaid grounds, the Appellant society brought to notice that there is a delay of 475 days in filing the present Revision Application. Hence, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the delay in filing the present case does not appear to be deliberate or intentional on the part of Applicant. So also the Applicant has given sufficient and reasonable cause for filing the Revision Application be-lately. 9) Thus, the Divisional Joint Registrar has mechanically accepted both the grounds of time consuming process for taking decision and monitory considerations pleaded by the society without bothering to examine as to how the decision making process for filing of the revision got delayed. There was absolutely no material on record ___Page No. 4 of 7 ___ 22 September 2026 Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx before the Divisional Joint Registrar, for arriving at a conclusion that decision-making process got delayed for a particular reason. It is also difficult to believe that the society was lacking funds for presentation of revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar. 10) Mr. Gada, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3- Society, orally seeks to submit that there was change in the Managing Committee of the society, which delayed the decision-making process. This ground is not pleaded in the application. However, even if the said ground is taken into consideration, the decision to file revision appears to have been taken by new Managing Committee and the earlier Managing Committee was satisfied with the Order dated 29 July 2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar. 11) In my view, therefore, the delay was not adequately explained in the present case and inordinately long delay of over one year and three months was sought to be condoned by pleading only a general explanation. In Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.1 , the Apex Court has laid down detailed guidelines about exercise of discretion by Courts while considering the issue condonation of delay. Though, the power of condonation of delay is discretionary, at the same time, the same cannot be exercised casually in the absence of pleading a justifiable ground especially when the delay is inordinate. In the present case, there was absolutely no justification pleaded in the application for seeking condonation of inordinate delay of 475 days. The Divisional Joint Registrar has grossly erred in condoning the delay by passing the 1 (2013) 12 SCC 649 ___Page No. 5 of 7 ___ 22 September 2026 Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx impugned order. Merely because the Court is required to adopt a liberal approach while considering the issue of condonation of delay, the same does not mean that the requirement of demonstrating existence of sufficient cause can be given a go-by altogether. In the present case, the Divisional Joint Registrar has not even bothered to examine whether their existed any justifiable or sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 12) Even otherwise, rejection of the Revision Application on account of non condonation of delay does not cause any prejudice to Respondent No.3-Society. If it is of the opinion that grant of membership to one of the Petitioners is erroneous on account of allotment of only one flat, necessary procedure needs to be adopted for cancellation of membership of one of the members. Such a decision cannot be adopted by passing of a mere resolution in the General Body Meeting. If any member is erroneously admitted by the society, he is required to be expelled from the society after following due process of law. The Deputy Registrar has already granted liberty to Respondent No.3-Society to exercise due process of law. The society is free to adopt such remedy. 13) In view of the above discussion, the Impugned Order dated 5 August 2026 is indefensible and liable to be set aside. The Writ Petition accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass the following Order: ' ___Page No. 6 of 7 ___ 22 September 2026 Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx ORDER i) Order dated 5 August 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is set aside. ii) Consequently, Revision Application No. 518 of 2025 is dismissed. iii) Respondent No.3-Society shall however be at liberty to adopt necessary remedy for expelling a member, who is erroneously admitted. If such remedy is adopted, the proceedings shall be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the findings recorded in the order. 14) All contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open. 15) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] ___Page No. 7 of 7 ___ 22 September 2026