Sanjay M. Parekh vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thro. The Office Of Govt. Pleader

Held

The Court held that the delay in filing the writ petition was not satisfactorily explained. While acknowledging the legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh regarding condonation of delay, the Court found that the facts of the present case did not warrant its application. The Court noted that the petitioner had offered no explanation for the substantial period between December 2022 and June 2024, leaving a large block of time unanswered. The Court also observed that the petitioner continued to occupy the society's premises and enjoy its facilities while remaining in default, and that equity did not support such a party seeking indulgence. Consequently, the Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, and the conduct of the petitioner did not justify interference with the impugned order. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating there would be no order as to costs. Any amounts paid by the petitioner would be appropriated towards outstanding dues.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay M. Parekh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24 May 2021 passed by the Revisional Authority. This order upheld a recovery certificate issued in favour of the respondent housing society under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner's primary contention was that the society had impermissibly loaded the demand by charging interest upon interest, interest upon penalty, and interest upon GST components, which he argued was unlawful. The respondent society countered that no interest was levied on penalty or GST amounts, and the interest charged was lawful, conforming to the society's bye-laws and the MCS Act. The society also raised a preliminary objection regarding gross delay in filing the petition, which was instituted on 11 July 2025, nearly four years after the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the writ petition is satisfactorily explained, considering the petitioner's contentions regarding the impugned order and the respondent society's assertion of gross delay. (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of condonation of delay and equitable considerations). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the delay was explained, and sought to rely on the Supreme Court's judgment in Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh to condone the delay. The petitioner also filed an additional affidavit to clarify the delay. Respondent's argument: The respondent society argued that the petition suffered from gross delay, as it was filed almost four years after the impugned order without any cogent or acceptable explanation. The respondent highlighted that the additional affidavit did not bridge the gap in explanation for a significant period between December 2022 and June 2024.