Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. All these writ petitions, I am inclined to dispose of by a common order as all the contesting respondents and issues so raised are same. The petitioners are members of respondent no. 3 society. The society dues were remained unpaid and therefore, the proceedings under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (MCS Act) were initiated against respective petitioners. The order passed by the Sub Registrar on 24th January, 2013 clearly records the fact of petitioner's Advocate's duly withdrawal of appearance after seeking appropriate permission of the Sub Registrar which was granted and duly recorded in the order passed under section 101 of the MCS Act on 24th January, 2013 and recovery certificate under section 101 came to be issued wherein it was mentioned that none present respondent (Petitioners) and the recovery order/certificate is issued against the petitioners.

3. I have already observed in Balasaheb Dhondiram Naikam Versus The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur and Others in Writ Petition No. 2183 of 2014 delivered on 13th February, 2015 in paragraphs 3 and 5 that a requisite opportunity needs to be given before passing an order under section 101 of the MCS Act. Paragraph nos. 3 and 5 read thus :

"3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pointed out the provisions specifically Rule 86-F (Chapter VIII-A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short, the MCS Rules), which is reproduced as under:

"86-F. Judgments, Order and Certificate:-After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Registrar shall issue a reasoned judgment and pass an order for the grant of the rejection of the application. The Registrar, thereafter, shall issue a Certificate in Form "V". The judgment and the certificate shall bear his seal, signature and date."

and further submission is placed, by referring to the basic notice issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the MCS Act") for recovery of the amount due dated 25 July 2011, in which there are no reasons whatsoever mentioned which is required in view of the Rules so referred. I am inclined to accept the submission, as in pursuance to the Rules, it is necessary for the Assistant Registrar and/or other Officers to give reasons, after giving opportunity to the borrowers and/or guarantors, before passing such order of recovery.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner strongly relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court Sundeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2010(6) All MR 550, whereby this Court, as the recovery certificate was issued without following due procedure and as the principles of natural justice were violated, interfered with the recovery certificate and directed the concerned officer to reconsider the same and to conduct de novo inquiry as per the Rules."

4. The facts in the present case therefore, shows that practically an ex parte order is passed against the petitioners. That definitely is not the mandate of the provisions of law as well as the natural justice. Reasonable opportunity ought to have been given even after recording the fact of the discharge of the advocate on 24th January, 2013.

5. In the above background and also in view of the fact that the petitioners were arranging for the requisite amount which was necessary to be deposited, and they are unable to do so in time. Therefore, they filed the revision application along with an application for condonation of delay. The respondents filed their reply to the application and resisted the same. Rejoinder was also filed by the petitioners referring to the background of earlier proceedings including the order of discharge in view of the application filed by their advocate. The Revisional Authority however, rejected the application stating that the same was not suppo