1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4198 OF 2008. Mahendikhan Ismailkhan Pathan and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.H.Borade, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.A.L.Tikle, advocate for the Respondent No.3. Mr.D.J.Choudhari, advocate for Respondent Nos.6 to 11 and 14 to 17. Miss.Vaishali B.Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent No.5. Mr.R.T.Nagargoje, advocate for the Respondent No. 12. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 19.01.2010. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioners challenged notification 2 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ambajogai, pertaining to election results in respect of the election of a Cooperative Society, Mandwa Pathan, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 3. By the impugned notification dated 20.5.2008, the learned Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies declared the Respondent Nos.6 to 18 as elected body members of the said Cooperative Society. 4. There are subsequent developments which occurred in the meanwhile. By order dated 21.11.2008, the Assistant Registrar, held that the said elected members i.e. the Respondent Nos. 6 to 18 are disqualified and, therefore, they are not eligible to continue in the office. There is no dispute about the fact that they did not submit the personal bonds as required U/s 73(1AB) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The disqualification, as a result of non- submission of such personal bonds within a period of 15 days is automatic and, therefore,the said 3 Respondents are no more in the office. With the result, the impugned notification has become ineffective. In other words, the impugned notification has become nonest due to the subsequent developments. 5. Considering the rival submissions and the nature of averments, allegations and counter allegations, it is manifestly clear that the petitioners have raised disputed questions of facts. 6. The petitioners are ready to go before the Cooperative Court U/s 91 of the MCS Act, if the interim order is continued for a period of four (4) weeks. It is strange co-incidence that the petitioners claimed that the Returning Officer nominated by the Assistant Registrar had declared them as elected members, without any opposition as they were the only candidates in the fray. So also, the Respondent Nos.6 to 18 claimed that they were the only 13 elected candidates because they were only persons who had filled up nomination forms and declared as 4 unopposed candidates. It is improbable that there would be unopposed election, prima facie, when the candidates had immediately taken opposite positions and before the election process was completed by the nominated Returning Officer Shri Dhole, there was a complaint and another Returning Officer was appointed on basis of his application. In the context of the nature of dispute and having regard to the disputed facts, the matter requires consideration by the trial Court where proper appreciation of evidence would be available. In this view of the matter, and particularly when the petitioners are ready and willing to go before the Cooperative Court, I deem it proper not to deal with any question of facts on merits of the matter. 7. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to take up the dispute U/s 91 before the Cooperative Court and by continuing ad- interim arrangement made by order dated 1.12.2008 for further period of four (4) weeks. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on merits and all questions are kept open. The petition is 5 accordingly disposed of. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp419808