Shamrao Mahadev Phate vs. The Collector

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2010 Shamrao Mahadev Phate : Petitioner V/s. The Collector & District Election Officer, Solapur & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.S.S.Salunkhe for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 & 2. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : JUNE 23, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner orally seeks permission to implead Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank as a partyrespondent. Leave granted. Appropriate amendment in the cause title be carried out forthwith. Notice before admission, returnable on 12.7.2010. Mr.Patil, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, waives service for the respondent nos.1 & 2. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.S.Salunkhe for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for resp. nos.1 & 2. Mr.Sarag Aryadha for respondent no.3. Mr.S.S.Inamdar for respondent no.4. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : JULY 09, 2010. P.C.: Considering the cause of action involved, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to mention the matter before the appropriate Court. Permission granted. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2010 Petitioner Respondents Mr.S.S.Rajeshirke for petitioner. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Sarang Aradhye for respondent no.3. Mr.Inamdar for respondent no.4. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 12th July 2010 PC : Not on on board. In view of urgency, the production is allowed and matter is taken on board. Heard Mr.Rajeshirke for the petitioner, Mr.Aradhye for respondent no.3, Mr.Inamdar for respondent no.4 and Mr.Bhosale, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. The petition pertains to the election of respondent no.4 The Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Solapur (hereinafter referred to as "the said bank"). The Gardi Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd; Gardi (hereinafter referred to as "the Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.") is the member of respondent no.4. The said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. passed a resolution on 20th March 2010 thereby nominating the respondent no.3 as it's delegate to take part in the general election of respondent no.4 bank. The resolution was sent to the respondent no.4 bank by the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. and respondent no.3's name was shown in provisional voters list as a delegate of said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.. The petitioner contends that a resolution came to be passed by the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. on 24th March 2010 thereby nominating him as a delegate of the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.. In spite of this resolution, his name is not entered into the provisional voters list. An objection was raised before the Collector, however, the same was rejected only on the ground that the signature of the Secretary of the said Society does not appear on the resolution. By order dated 18th March 2010, the learned Collector rejected the petitioner's petitioner for non inclusion of his name in the provisional voters list as a delegate of the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.. The final voters list thereafter was published in the month of May 2010 and against the name of said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd; the name of respondent no.3 is shown as it's delegate. Rule 16 programme was subsequently published on 3rd July 2010 and the last date for filing the nomination is today. The election is at an advanced stage. The petitioner, in spite of rejection of objection by the Collector on 18th May 2010, filed present petition on 18th June 2010 i.e. after nearly about one month. The petitioner is guilty of laches. Apart from these facts, admittedly there are two resolutions passed by the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd; one in favour of respondent no.3 and another in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no.4 bank acted upon the resolution of the said Society wherein respondent no.3 was nominated as a delegate. The relevant question would be, which, out of the two resolutions, is the valid resolution. The validity of said two resolutions can be gone into by the Co-operative Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the validity of the said resolution along with the out-come of the election. Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.)