JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.10.1999 passed by the Co-operative Tribunal and the order dated 4.5.1994 passed by the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. Varanasi. These orders have been appended as Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 respectively to the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Accountant in Sadhan Sahkari Samiti in the year 1961, and was promoted on the post of Sachiv in the said Samiti in the year 1978. While working as Sachiv of the Samiti, Anai Block Badagaon, district Varanasi, certain charges were levelled against him and he was put under suspension. The Upper Zila Sahkari Adhikari, Sadar, Varanasi, was appointed as inquiry officer and an ex parte report was submitted by him.
3. By the impugned order dated 4.5.1994, the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P., Varanasi, passed an order under Section 68 (2) of the Act declaring the petitioner to be disqualified to work as Sachiv in the Samiti unless he refunds the amount embezzled by him. However, thereafter the order of suspension was recalled by an order dated 5.5.1994 by the Member Secretary. The petitioner filed a review application against the order dated 4.5.1994, but that review application moved by the petitioner was not maintainable, as such he filed an appeal under Section 98 (g) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit explaining the delay before the Co-operative Tribunal.
4. The Co-operative Tribunal vide order dated 8.10.1999 rejected the appeal on the grounds that the appeal has been filed without appending certified copy of the impugned order, which is against the procedure of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and day to day delay has not been explained and the application for condonation of delay was devoid of any details regarding the efforts made by the petitioner for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order dated 4.5.1994 against which the appeal has been filed, The relevant part of the affidavit filed in support of application for condoning the delay in this regard is quoted below :
"The appellant approached the respondent No. 1 on 24.10.1394 and requested to give certified copy of the aforesaid order, but inspite of the best efforts of the appellants, the certified copy of the order dated .4,5.1994 has not been given to the appellant."
5. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the ground for condonation of delay given in the application and affidavit were unsatisfactory.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that the order dated 8.10.1999 passed by the Tribunal refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which was time barred by 116 days, is against the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to contest the application before the Tribunal. It has been argued that in these circumstances the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 are liable to be quashed.
7. In support of the case, the petitioner has cited Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. v. Gobardhan Sana and others, JT 2002 (2) SC 350, G. P. Srivastava v. R. K. Ratzada and others, 2000 (2) AWC 1294 (SC) : 2000 (91) RD 325 and M. K. Prasad v. R. Arumugam, 2001 (3) AWC 2395 (SC); JT 2001 SC 1509.
8. In the case of Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. v. Gobardhan Sahu and others, JT 2002 (2) SC 350, the Apex Court was considering the question of abatement of the suit for failure to bring legal heirs on record. The Apex Court held that:
"In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or not, will be dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused."
9. This case was decided in the peculiar facts and the circumstances under Section 115 read with Order XXII, Rule 9 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the present case, Section 98 (n) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act provides that an appeal against the order of the Registrar can be filed within 30 days by the aggrieved party. Under Clause (g) (i) of Section 98, an appeal has to be preferred before the Tribunal within 30 days. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the case before us are clearly distinguishable from the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sahu (supra).
10. The case of M. K. Prosod v. P. Arumugam (supra) is also of no help to the petitioner. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, it has been held by the Apex Court that :
"It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory."
11. In the case of G. P. Srivastava v. R. K. Raizada and others (supra), the Apex Court was considering the submissions under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. The petitioner relied upon paragraph 6 of the judgment wherein it has been held that :
"The words "was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing" must be legally construed to enable the Court to do complete justice between ; the parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to erring party. Sufficient cause for the purpose of Order IX, Rule 13 has to be construed as elastic expression for which no hard and fast guidelines can be prescribed. The Courts have wide discretion in deciding the sufficient cause keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case."
12. From the above, it is quite obvious that the aforesaid judgment does not apply as the Apex Court has not considered the question of limitation under U. P. Co-operative Societies Acts and Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner could not establish any mala fide and no reason or basis or material has been given by the petitioner which constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 116 days in filing the appeal. It has remained unexplained.
13. The order dated 4.5.1994 was passed against the petitioner for embezzlement of Rs. 9,84,610.71 paise from the society and the petitioner was directed to deposit the aforesaid amount along with the interest and till then, he was not permitted to serve as Sachiv. He filed an appeal under Section 98 (g) of the Act. The petitioner was entrusted with money of the society as its officer. He committed breach of trust and fraudulently embezzled money and property belonging to the society. He has also not deposited the amount embezzled by him along with interest in pursuance of the orders dated 4.5.1994 and 8.10.1999. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order on merits apart from the delay in filing the appeal.
14. For the reasons stated above; we do not find it a fit case for exercising extraordinary powers vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also on merits, the petitioner was not able to point out any illegality in the impugned orders. No other point has been pressed before us.
15. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.