JUDGMENT : 1. The captioned three inter-connected petitions were notified together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. 1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr.Sandip Patel for the petitioners in all the three petitions, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Rasesh Rindani for the respondent – State in all the three petitions, whereas learned advocate Mr.Ashish Desai for respondent No.5 in Special Civil Application No.14901 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.15921 of 2017. 2. Special Civil Application No.14901 of 2017 is directed against order dated 05th July, 2017 passed in Revision Application No.23 of 2016. The Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Co-operation Department – the revisional authority rejected the Revision Application of the petitioner on the ground that it was time barred in view of provision of Section 92(2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. As far as other two Special Civil Application No.15671 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.15921 of 2017 are concerned, they are against order dated 08th August, 2017 respectively passed by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himmatnagar, in exercise of powers under Section 76B(1) and 76B(2) of the Act removing and disqualifying the petitioners concerned. 3. It may be noticed that what was the subject matter of the revision proceedings before the Deputy Secretary was a report given by the inquiry officer under Section 86(6) of the Act. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.15671 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.15921 of 2017 who were the Secretary and Chairman of the Prantij Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited respectively and who faced allegations with regard to certain irregularities and illegalities committed by them. 3.1 Orders dated 08th August, 2017 passed by the District Registrar were the orders passed because of the fact that revision application as above was dismissed by the revisional authority. Resultantly, powers under Section 43(2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act were exercised and by simultaneous common order, the two petitioners came to be removed from their respective office and ordered to be further disqualified from contesting the election. In other words, the orders which are impugned in the second and third petition were the fall out and were the consequential orders passed pursuant to order impugned in the first petition. 4. In other words, the orders which are impugned in the second and third petition were the fall out and were the consequential orders passed pursuant to order impugned in the first petition. 4. It would be the position that outcome of the first petition would have bearing on the survivability or otherwise of the consequential two orders dated 08th August, 2017 which are impugned in the other two petitions. Therefore, adverting to the order dated 05th July, 2017 passed by the revisional authority, the revision application came to be dismissed on the sole ground that the revision was not filed within the period of two months stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 92 of the Act. “92. Registrar to bring defects disclosed in inquiry or inspection to notice of society: (1) If the result of any inquiry held under Section 86 or inspection made under Section 87, discloses any defects in the constitution, working or financial condition or the books of the society, the Registrar may bring such defects to the notice of the society. The Registrar may also make an order directing the society or its officers to take such action as may be specified in the order to remedy the defects, within the the time specified therein. (2) The Society concerned may make an appeal against an order made by the Registrar under sub-section (1) to the State Government within two months from the date of communication of the order to the society. (3) The State Government may, in deciding the appeal, annul, reverse, modify or confirm the order of the Registrar. (4) Where the society fails to rectify the defects as directed by the Registrar and where no appeal has been made to the State Government under sub-section (2) or where on the appeal so made the State Government has not annulled, reversed or modified the order, the Registrar may himself take steps to have the defects rectified, and may recover the cost from the officers of the society who, in his opinion, have failed to rectify the defects.” 5. Therefore, sub-section (2) contemplates period of two months from the date of communication of order for filing appeal against the order made by the Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 92. The reasoning adopted by the revisional authority is that period of these two months had passed-by, therefore the revision application was time barred. Therefore, sub-section (2) contemplates period of two months from the date of communication of order for filing appeal against the order made by the Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 92. The reasoning adopted by the revisional authority is that period of these two months had passed-by, therefore the revision application was time barred. 5.1 Now, from the facts it appears that initially report dated 21st June, 2012 was submitted by the inquiry officer under Section 86 of the Act. Subsequently, another report was submitted on 02nd August, 2013. Since report of the inquiry dated 02nd August, 2013 was against the petitioner, the same was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) by filing Revision Application No.188 of 2013. Revision application was dismissed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) on 09th February, 2016 stating that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter and the orders sought to be challenged before it would not fall within the purview of his jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Act. It was, therefore, on such ground that the first revision of the petitioner before the Additional Registrar who was not the appropriate authority, was dismissed. After the order of Additional Registrar dated 09th February, 2016, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.23 of 2016 before the competent authority – the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Cooperation Department, empowered to exercise revisional powers against the impugned inquiry report. This revisional authority took view that the period of two months provided under Section 92(2) was not adhered to and the revision was time barred. 6. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner initially agitated his case by filing Revision Application No.188 of 2013 before the wrong forum. The Additional Registrar (Appeals) was not the competent revisional forum and revision was not maintainable before it. This being the position, period of two months was required to be reckoned from 09th February, 2016, when the Additional Registrar dismissed the said Revision Application No.188 of 2013. The subsequent Revision Application No.23 of 2016 was filed after order dated 09th February, 2016. Since the petitioner was pursuing the proceedings bona fide before the wrong forum, and the delay in filing Revision Application No.23 of 2016 occurred for that reason, delay can be condoned. The subsequent Revision Application No.23 of 2016 was filed after order dated 09th February, 2016. Since the petitioner was pursuing the proceedings bona fide before the wrong forum, and the delay in filing Revision Application No.23 of 2016 occurred for that reason, delay can be condoned. 6.1 An attempt was made by learned Assistant Government Pleader to submit that Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act was a special statute and since in Section 92(2) period of limitation was specially provided to be of two months, no revision could have been entertained after expiry of two months contemplated and that further delay could not be condoned by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6.2 With regard to the above contention, it has to be observed that the language of Section 92(2) is that the appeal may be filed to the State Government within two months from the date of communication of the order of the society. The question sought to be raised by learned Assistant Government Pleader is that limitation period could not be condoned even though sufficient cause is shown in view of the limitation having been provided in special statute and that the provision of Limitation Act, 1963 as well as Section 5 of the Act would not apply. However, looking to the language of Section 92(2) and applying the law laid down in Cadila Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v. Union of India being Special Civil Application No.6417 of 2008 decided on 12th October, 2017, Limitation Act would apply to the provision of Section 92(2) for the purpose of condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause. What is relevant is the language of the statute. The similar view is reiterated in Hansa Govindbhai Patel v. Shree Vidhyadham Co-operative Housing Society Limited being Special Civil Application No.2227 of 2014 decided on 06th November, 2017 wherein Section 41A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 which provided period of 10 days for filing leave to defend application was under consideration. It was held that looking to the language of the said provision, delay beyond period of 10 days prescribed therein was condonable on sufficient cause being made out. In this case, the principle laid down in Cadila Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (supra) and Hansa Govindbhai Patel (supra) would apply. Delay in filing revision application before the revisional authority was liable to be condoned. 7. In this case, the principle laid down in Cadila Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (supra) and Hansa Govindbhai Patel (supra) would apply. Delay in filing revision application before the revisional authority was liable to be condoned. 7. In view of the above factual and legal situation emerging, while the first petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order therein and directing the revisional authority to decide the revision application on merits by condoning delay. The other two petitions being the consequential petitions, the impugned orders therein would have to be treated appropriately by issuing necessary directions. 7.1 It was pointed out that elections to the Managing Committee of Sabarkantha Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited has already been started on 08th January, 2018 and the counting is to take place on 11th February, 2018 and on the very day result are scheduled to be declared. Learned advocate for the petitioners produced election programme showing various stages and submitted that petitioners may be held entitled to participate in the election. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the inquiry report against the petitioners adverse to them stand to hold the field and the decision thereon is awaited as directed above, it would not be proper to allow the petitioners to vote in the present election. 8.1 In view of above discussion and reasons, the following order is passed. (i) Order dated 05th July, 2017 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Agriculture and Cooperation Department, in Special Civil Application No.14901 of 2017 dismissing Revision Application No.23 of 2016 on the ground of delay, is hereby set aside. The said revisional authority – the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Agriculture and Co-operation Department, is directed to entertain the revision application so as to decide the same on merits on or before 29th January, 2018. The said revisional authority – the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Agriculture and Co-operation Department, is directed to entertain the revision application so as to decide the same on merits on or before 29th January, 2018. Special Civil Application No.14901 of 2017 shall stand allowed accordingly and in the said terms; (ii) In view of the order and direction in (I) above whereby the competent authority is directed to decide the Revision Application No.23 of 2016 on merits, order dated 08th August, 2017 of District Registrar, Co-operative Societies – respondent No.2, impugned in Special Civil Application No.15671 of 2017 shall remain suspended till the outcome of the aforementioned Revision Application No.23 of 2016; (iii) In view of the order and direction in (i) above whereby the competent authority is directed to decide the Revision Application No.23 of 2016 on merits, order dated 08th August, 2017 of District Registrar, Co-operative Societies – respondent No.2, impugned in Special Civil Application No.15921 of 2017 shall remain suspended till the outcome of the aforementioned Revision Application No.23 of 2016; (iv) The survivability of order dated 08th August, 2017 in both the Special Civil Application No.15971 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.15921 of 2017 respectively will depend upon the decision which may be taken in the aforesaid Revision Application; (v) In the facts and circumstances of the case, despite the order dated 08th August, 2017 in both the petitions above are to remain under suspension till the decision in Revision Application No.23 of 2016, the suspension of the order shall not result into creation of any rights in favour of the petitioners including right to vote in the elections to the Managing Committee of Sabarkantha Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited which is already underway; 9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the either side. The order and direction above in (ii), (iii) and (iv) are consequential upon order dated 05th July, 2017 having been set aside and the revision has been directed to be decided on merits; 10. It is further clarified that revisional authority while deciding the Revision Application No.23 of 2016 shall not be influenced by its earlier order nor shall be influenced by the present order and the directions therein and the revision shall be independently considered and decided strictly on merits. 11. It is further clarified that revisional authority while deciding the Revision Application No.23 of 2016 shall not be influenced by its earlier order nor shall be influenced by the present order and the directions therein and the revision shall be independently considered and decided strictly on merits. 11. Special Civil Application No.14901 of 2017 stands allowed to the aforesaid extent and in the aforesaid terms, whereas rest of the two Special Civil Application No.15971 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.15921 of 2017 stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. Direct service is permitted, today.