Shobha Vijayrao Pujari vs Divisional Joint Registrar, ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 464 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.G. Karnik, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. The respondent No. 5 is a Co-operative Housing Society and respondent No. 6 was the Chief Promoter of the respondent No. 5 society as well as the Builder. He was also the Chairman of the said society for some time, immediately after registration.

3. Initially share Nos. 651 were allotted to Ramlal Damu Patil by the respondent No. 5 society. The said share was transferred in the name of the petitioner and her father-in-law on 16th July, 1992. One flat is allotted to the petitioner. It appears that the respondent No. 5 has borrowed some money from respondent No. 3 Finance Corporation. A notice under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") was issued to the petitioner on 27th December, 1995 alleging that an amount of Rs. 61,903.50 was due. The petitioner replied the said notice on January 4, 1996. It appears that no action was taken in pursuance of the notice dated 27th December, 1995. A fresh notice dated 2-3-1996 was issued under section 101 of the Act claiming an amount of Rs. 45,550/- from the petitioner. The petitioner also replied the said notice by her reply dated 19-3-1996. There is some dispute as to whether any further notice was issued to the petitioner or not. According to the petitioner, no further notice was issued to her. According to the respondent No. 3 a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on 10-8-1999 calling her for hearing on 11-9-1999. It is, however, not necessary to resolve this controversy in this writ.

4. On 16th October, 1999 the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, issued Certificate under section 101 of the Act for recovery of Rs. 1,41,647.17 from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she was not heard before issuance of the Recovery Certificate and in any event, the order and issuance of the Recovery Certificate dated 28th December, 1999 were never communicated to the petitioner. It appears that the warrant for attachment was issued against the petitioner on 7th December, 2000. According to the petitioner, she came to know of the order dated 28-12-1999 passed under section 101 of the Act only after the attachment warrant dated 7th December, 2000 was issued to her. On 5th February, 2001, the petitioner filed a Revision Application No. 17/2001 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad challenging the order and Recovery Certificate dated 28th December, 1999.

5. Several contentions were raised before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar, however by his order dated 6th November, 2001 dismissed the Revision Application solely on the ground that the Revision Application was not filed within limitation. This order of the Divisional Joint Registrar is challenged in this petition.

6. Section 154 of the Act confers a power on the State Government and/or the Registrar to revise the orders. Sub-section (3) of section 154 which prescribes the period of limitation for filing of the Revision reads as under:

"154(3): No application for revision shall be entertained, if made after two months of the date of communication of the decision or order. The revisional authority may entertain any of such application made after such period, if the applicant satisfies it that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."

(Underline supplied)

7. The period of limitation of two months is provided for filing of a Revision, commences from the date of communication of the decision or the order. In the Revision Application before the Divisional Joint Registrar, the petitioner had specifically stated that :

"........ nor the fact of issuance of Certificate under section 101(2) is communicated to her either by the respondent No. 1 and also by the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. She got knowledge of the same only after receipt of notice of respondent No. 3 dated 7-12-2000."

8. In this petition also the petitioner has specifically said :

"............ The petitioner points out that she had no knowledge of the certificates until further steps were taken in this matter. The petitioner points out that she being in service, which is transferable, she had to move from place to place at the place of her service. It was on or about 7-12-2000 that the petitioner got knowledge of the recovery certificate issued against her when she got notice for payment of amount based on the said certificate."

9. In these circumstances, the period of limitation for filing of a Revision under section 154 of the Act did not begin to run until 7th December, 2000. The Revision filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar on 5th February, 2001 was thus filed within two months of the date of communication. The Divisional Joint Registrar, therefore, erred in holding that the Revision Application was barred by limitation. As the Divisional Joint Registrar did not consider the merits of the matter, it is necessary to remand the Revision for decision on merits.

10. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has claimed certain reliefs against the respondent No. 6. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that in view of the fact that the matter is being remanded, those prayers may not be considered and the petitioner may be permitted to agitate them as and when necessary. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 has no objection for the same.

11. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order dated 6th November, 2001 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Aurangabad, in Revision Application No. 17/2001 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to him for decidinsg it afresh on merits. Rule made absolute in above terms.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.