Advocates:
['ADV ASHWIN D BHOBE', '', 'ADV SAGAR SURENDRA SARMALKER', 'ADV BHOBE SHRADHA SUBHASH']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No.1029/2017

Shri.Prakash Varik,

Son of Anant P.Varik,

69 years of age,

r/o Flat no.1,3^rd floor,

Shivnery Co-operative Housing Society,

Comba, Margao, Goa.

PETITIONER

V/S

The Chairman,

Shivnery Co-operative Housing Society,

Comba, Margao, Goa.

RESPONDENT

….

Mr. A.D.Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Mahesh Kamat, Chairman of Society.

CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN, J.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 9.2.2018.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:20/02/2018.

JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective

parties.

2.

The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated

29.9.2017 passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Goa in Misc.

Civil Application No.12/2017/Condone and Misc.Appln.No.

Unregistered/Stay/2017, by which the learned Tribunal

dismissed the application for condonation of delay dated

2

7.6.2017 seeking condonation of delay of 407 days in filing an

appeal under Section 90 read with Section 114 of the Goa

Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 against an order dated

9.5.2016 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative

Societies,South Goa, Margao, in Case No.ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN

-1/2002.

3.

Briefly stated, the respondent, who is the original

disputant, had raised a dispute under Section 83 of the Goa

Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 against the petitioner, which

was being considered by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, South Goa, Margao, and was registered as case

no.ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2002. Hearing of the said matter

was concluded on 17.02.2016. The petitioner was personally

present on that date. The Assistant Registrar thereafter fixed

the said case for orders by stating that it would be

communicated to the parties. However, it is the contention of

the petitioner that the Assistant Registrar did not communicate

the said order to the petitioner. When the petitioner had been to

the office of the Assistant Registrar in connection with another

case bearing no.ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2003, he learnt

about disposal of ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2002. He came to

know that the Assistant Registrar had disposed of Case No.

ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2002 on 9.5.2016. The petitioner

3

thereafter applied for certified copy on 20.3.2017.

4.

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated

9.5.2016 passed in Case No.ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2002,

approached the learned Tribunal with an appeal under Section

90 read with Section 114 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001. Though, the petitioner was not communicated with the

said order, out of an abundant caution, he filed an application

seeking condonation of delay of 407 days. However, the learned

Tribunal, after considering the application and reply filed by the

respondent, by the impugned order rejected the application.

5.

Shri Bhobe, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

argued that the Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error in

law as well as in facts to appreciate that the application seeking

condonation of delay was essentially on the ground that the

judgment and order dated 9.5.2016 was not communicated to

the petitioner. The respondent, who appears in person, though

agrees that there is no record indicating the communication of

the said order to the petitioner yet, he submits that the

petitioner had notice and knowledge of the impugned order

dated 9.5.2016. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that he had made out, “sufficient cause” for seeking

condonation of delay. The learned Tribunal ought to have

4

accepted the explanation of the petitioner and merely because

the respondent has contended that the petitioner had

knowledge of the said order, would not ifso-facto mean that the

petitioner was negligent. He, therefore, pray