1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.13503 OF 2010 Ramesh Janu Ambekar and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Election / Returning Officer and anr. ..Respondents ......... Mr.V.X.D’Silva, for petitioners. Mr.P.G.Palwande, Asst. Returning Officer – Respondent No.1 (in person). Mr.Vijay Shukla, for respondent no.2. ......... CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 28th MAY, 2010. P.C. : This petition challenges the order dated 18 th May, 2010 passed by the Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, S.R.A., Bandra, Mumbai, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners upholding the decision of the Returning Officer dated 29 th April, 2010 whereby the nominations filed by the petitioners were rejected. 2] Mr.D’Silva, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the nominations are rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that in the elections of the Managing Committee were held three years back and though the wpst13503-10.sxw 2 petitioners were elected in the said elections, they did not take the charge and consequently their action is against the Co-operative principles. Mr.D’Silva submits that this cannot be considered to be a valid ground for rejecting the nominations. He further submitted that the impugned order suffers from error apparent on the fact of record, in as much as, though the appellate Authority is vested with powers to condone the delay, in the present case, the appellate Authority dismissed the appeal not only on merits but also on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 3] On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 has supported the impugned order. 4] After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for invocation of powers under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the first place, the elections are due on 30 th May, 2010. If at this stage, any order is passed it is bound to upset the elections process. Secondly, though the petitioners were elected in the elections held earlier in the year 2008, they did not take charge of the Society. Considering this conduct of the petitioners, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5] In view of above, Writ Petition is rejected. However, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the result of the elections, they will be free to adopt wpst13503-10.sxw 3 the appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 5] Writ Petition, is accordingly, dismissed by reserving the aforesaid remedy. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] wpst13503-10.sxw