The appellate Authority under section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act has the necessary jurisdiction and power to restore an appeal that is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining an appeal under section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the said Act) having dismissed the appeal in default has the jurisdiction and power to restore the same.

3. On the basis of an enquiry report submitted under section 83 of the said Act, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies passed further orders under section 88 of the said Act. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 21-11-2011. Being aggrieved by aforesaid enquiry report, the petitioners filed an appeal under section 152 of the said Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. It appears that on a few occasions, the appellants and their Counsel were not present before the Appellate Authority and hence on 17-4-2014 the Divisional Joint Registrar dismissed said appeal in default. The petitioners moved an application for restoration of the said appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. However, on 12-3-2015 the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies held that as there was no provision for restoration of the proceedings, the same could not be restored. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Shri D.V. Siras, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Divisional Joint Registrar had necessary jurisdiction and the power to restore the appeal that was dismissed in default. It was submitted that the Divisional Joint Registrar having been conferred statutory power to entertain an appeal under section 152 of the said Act, said Authority by necessary implication had the power to make the grant of such statutory power effective. In absence of any bar in the said Act prohibiting the appellate Authority from restoring proceedings dismissed in default, it could not be said that there was no power to do so. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer, Cannanore vs. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi AIR 1969 SC 430 and judgment of learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Divisional Personnel Officer vs. Unnamalai decided on 19-2-2003. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent No. 1 ought to be directed to reconsider the application for restoration.

5. Shri S.B. Ahirkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supported the impugned order. It was submitted that due to absence of the petitioners and their Counsel before the appellate Authority, the order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution was justified. Shri A.R. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, however, fairly stated that by applying general principles under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate Authority would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for restoration of the appeal. It was, however, submitted that the order dismissing the proceedings for want of prosecution was justified. He brought to the notice of the Court the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi vs. L. H. Patel and another, 2009(3) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 767, (2009) 2 SCC 81 wherein it was held that the power to proceed ex parte under Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 carried with it the power to recall an ex parte order. He also referred to the judgment of the learned Single judge in Lokmanya Nagar Priyadarshini and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., 2007 MhLJ Online 1, 2007(1) BCR 929 and Savitri Chandrakesh Pal vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 406 in that regard.

6. I have given due consideration to the respective submissions and I have gone through the documents filed on record. Section 152 of the said Act confers jurisdiction on the Divisional Joint Registrar to entertain an appeal against an order or decision under sections stated therein. Section 152(3-A) of the