1 wp-1160-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1160 OF 2011 Laxman Dharma Patil & Ors ..Petitioners V/s. Union of India & ors. ...Respondents Mr. V.S.Kapse for the Petitioners Mr. G.Hariharan i/b Dr. T.C.Kaushik for Respondent Nos.1& 2 Mr. V.P.Sawant i/b Mr. D.W.Bhosale for Respondent No.3 CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1 The substantive relief sought in the above Petition is for a direction against the Respondents, to hold the elections to the Board of Directors of the Respondent No.3 society. The Respondent No.3 society is a credit society of the employees of Pfizer Company Ltd. 2 In reply to the above Petition an Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3 by one Mr. Shirish Patil, Chairman, of the Respondent No.3 wherein it has been stated that the elections to the society took place in the General Body Meeting held on 4-6-2010 and that the newly elected body is now in charge of the society. To the said Affidavit various documents are annexed, in support of the case of the Respondent No.3 that the elections were held on 4-6-2010. The said position is disputed by the Petitioners by filing an affidavit in 2 wp-1160-11 rejoinder. Suffice is to refer to two paragraphs of the said affidavit in rejoinder wherein the Petitioners have disputed the minutes and have also asserted that assuming elections were held they were held in violation of the well settled principles. The Petitioners in the said Affidavit in rejoinder have in terms disputed the various stages of the elections which were purportedly adopted for election to the Board of Directors of the Respondent No.3 3 In our view, the assertion of the Respondent No.3 and the denial of the same by the Petitioners, gives rise to disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by us in our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, do not deem it appropriate to intervene in our writ jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reason, the above Petition is dismissed. 4 However, it is open for the Petitioners to file appropriate proceedings as permissible in law to challenge the said election. It is made clear that the contentions of the parties have not been dealt with and it will for the parties to agitate the same before the concerned authority. If such proceedings are filed, needless to state that they would be tried on their own merits and in accordance with law. (R.M.Savant, J.) (P.B.Majmudar, J.)