Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indore Development Authority vs Anoop on 12 September, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26166
1 WP-22324-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 22324 of 2021
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Versus
ANOOP AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudarshan Joshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Bagadia, Senior Advocate with Shri Anunay Shrivastav -
Advocate for the respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 22281 of 2021
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Versus
LAXMI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudarshan Joshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.K. Rawat - Advocate for the respondents.
WRIT PETITION No. 22310 of 2021
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Versus
ASHAISH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudarshan Joshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Bagadia, Senior Advocate with Shri Anunay Shrivastav
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 12-Sep-25
6:12:25 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26166
2 WP-22324-2021
- Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally
heard.
02. Since these petitions raise common questions of facts and law, they
have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.
03. These petitions have been preferred by the petitioner being
aggrieved by orders dated 07.01.2020 passed by the M.P. State Co-operative
Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby application under Section 5 of Limitation Act,
1963 preferred by it has been rejected and consequently the appeal has been
dismissed as barred by time.
04. Being aggrieved by an order dated 10.09.2018 (Annexure P/2)
passed by the Joint Registrar (Judicial), Co-operative Societies, Indore, a
second appeal under Section 78(2) of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act,
1960 was preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Since the same was
barred by time by 116 days, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay in filing the same was also preferred. The
application was contested by the respondents. By the impugned order, the
Tribunal has found that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause for
condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and has consequently rejected
the application and the appeal itself as barred by time.
05. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
06. It is noteworthy that the delay in preferring of the appeal was 116
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26166
3 WP-22324-2021
days. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner had stated
that after the order impugned in the appeal was passed, the same was handed
over to the institution. Since the petitioner is an institution having various
departments they took note of it and scrutinized the order and thereafter
forwarded the same to the legal department in which time was consumed.
After receiving the order, the legal department decided to take further legal
action in the matter. The entire process took time therefore the delay has
been occasioned in filing of the appeal. The Tribunal has examined the
reasons given by the petitioner threadbare and has proceeded in the matter
solely with the purpose and intent of finding fault with the case of the
petitioner.
07. It is well settled that in the matters of condonation of delay, a
liberal view ought to be adopted so as to advance substantial justice and as
far as possible, the disputes should be decided on merits rather than being
thrown overboard on the ground of limitation particularly when the delay is
not huge. In the present matter, delay was only 116 days which cannot be
said to be so inordinate so as to shut out the dispute without considering its
merits.
08. Though it has been strenuously urged by learned counsel for the
respondents that the reasons given by the petitioner seeking condonation of
delay were neither sufficient nor plausible but the fact that the petitioner is an
institution and not an individual cannot be lost sight of. It would be natural
for decision of preferring of an appeal being taken at the inter-departmental
level within the petitioner organization. If it was stated that after receipt of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26166
4 WP-22324-2021
the copy of the order, the same was sent to the departments of the petitioner
and eventually to the legal department which took the decision to prefer the
appeal, nothing unusual can be pointed out in the same. It is not a case where
it was an individual who had to take the decision. It is obvious that the matter
would have been processed by different departments of the petitioner and
thereafter on forming of an opinion that the order impugned deserves to be
challenged in appeal, decision in that regard would have been taken. Time
would have certainly been consumed in the said process hence it cannot be
said that the reason offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay was
either insufficient or was mala fide in any manner.
09. Though in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs.
Living Media India Ltd., 2012 (3) SCC 563 relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents the Apex Court has held that in absence of
diligence by the department in prosecution of the matter, the delay ought not
to be condoned, but in the present matter there does not appear to be any
absence of diligence on part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal hence
the said judgment is not of any help to the respondents.
10. In the available facts of the case, in my opinion, the Tribunal ought
to have condoned the delay in preferring of the appeal by the petitioner, but
in not doing so, it has acted illegally. Consequently, the impugned orders
dated 07.01.2020 passed by the M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal
are hereby quashed. The delay in preferring of the appeal before the Tribunal
is condoned and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner
on merits. Since the contesting parties are represented before this Court, they
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26166
5 WP-22324-2021
are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 10.10.2025 for which date no
fresh notices would be required to be issued to them. The Tribunal shall also
finally decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of
appearance of the parties.
11. The petitions are accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
