Bombay High Court on Condonation of Delay in Cooperative Auction Revisions.

Headnote:

The Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by judgment debtors challenging the rejection of their application for condonation of delay of over twelve years in filing a revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Court held that the petitioners’ claim of ignorance about the auction proceedings was false, as evidenced by their own correspondence and documents dated 2011 and 2015. The Court emphasized that suppression of facts or deliberate misrepresentation in writ petitions strikes at the root of justice and cannot be tolerated. Costs were imposed to protect the judicial process.

Background:

1. Petitioners mortgaged two properties in 2005 to secure loans.
2. Certificates of dues were issued on 16 January 2007 for Rs. 68,08,969 and Rs. 83,47,098 under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
3. Failure to repay led the Special Recovery Officer to auction the properties (Gat No. 183 and Gat No. 332) on 17 August 2009.
4. Petitioners alleged auction purchasers failed to deposit 15% and 85% of bid amount within the prescribed period under Rule 107(11)(g) & (h) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, rendering the auction void.
5. Petitioners filed a revision seeking condonation of delay of over twelve years, claiming they first learned about the auction in November 2020.
6. Respondents contended that petitioners were aware of the auction as early as 16 September 2011 and in 2015, citing bank correspondence and acknowledgment letters.

Court’s Observations:

1. Writ petitions based on false statements or suppression of facts cannot be entertained.
2. Petitioners’ claim of ignorance was contradicted by documents:
3. 16 September 2011: Petitioners requested and received account extracts reflecting auction proceeds.
4. 16 April 2015: Petitioners acknowledged receipt and appropriation of auction amounts.
5. Deliberate misrepresentation undermines the foundation of writ jurisdiction, which is discretionary and equity-based.
6. Litigants must approach the Court with full honesty and disclosure of all material facts; failure to do so results in refusal of relief.
7. Wastage of judicial time and public resources occurs when falsehoods are used to manipulate the Court.
8. Reliance was placed on Amar Singh v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69 and Shamrao Ramu Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1072 of 2005 regarding the conduct expected of parties approaching writ jurisdiction.

Legal Principles Discussed:

1. Section 154, Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Power to file revisions and limitation considerations.
2. Rule 107(11)(g) & (h), Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 – Procedure for auction payments.
3. Article 226, Constitution of India – Discretionary writ jurisdiction based on fairness and complete disclosure.

Decision:

1. Writ petitions dismissed.
2. Order dated 1 November 2021 by the Divisional Joint Registrar refusing condonation of delay upheld.
3. Petitioners directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four weeks; non-payment recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
4. Ad-interim relief not extended.

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:48823

Case: Ramrao Tukaram Patil & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Hon’ble Amit Borkar, J.

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025

Writ Petition Nos.: 7660 & 7661 of 2021