W.P.NO.5218/05 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5218 OF 2005 Nashik District Labour Contract Co-operative Societies Federation Ltd. .. Petitioner versus Shri Bhimrao Kondaji Jejure & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Nitin Mulye i/by Mr.G.S.Godbole for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th August 2010. JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the 1st respondent. Heard learned A.G.P for the 3rd respondent. 2. In the year 2003 the election of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society was scheduled to be held. According to the case of the petitioner, Mathadi Kamgar Majdoor Sahakari Sanstha, Nandgaon (hereinafter referred to as the said society) was one of the members of the W.P.NO.5218/05 (2) petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said Society was a defaulter and letters were served to the said Society calling upon the said Society to pay the dues. The 1st respondent filed his nomination as the representative of the said Society. At the time of scrutiny, the 2nd respondent (Returning Officer) found that the said Society was a defaulter and therefore the nomination paper of the 1st respondent was rejected. The 1st respondent preferred an appeal under section 152-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said appeal has been allowed by the impugned order by the District Deputy Registrar of the Co- operative Societies. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the petitioner did not call upon the said society to pay the dues and the 1st respondent was not a defaulter. He submitted that the petitioner was a necessary party to the appeal and even the other candidates who had filed nomination were also necessary parties. He relied upon various documents annexed to the petition (Exhibit E collectively). The said documents show that a demand notice was issued to the society calling upon the said society to pay the dues. He placed reliance on decision of this Court in the case of Vijaysingh W.P.NO.5218/05 (3) Krishnarao Parbat Vs. Returning Officer [2003 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal 485]. He submitted that as the petitioner was not a party to the appeal, the said documents could not be placed on record before the Appellate Authority. The learned A.G.P supported the impugned judgment and order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The 1st respondent had filed nomination paper as the nominee of the said society. It was the duty of the Returning Officer to verify whether the said society was a defaulter. The Returning Officer found that the said society was a defaulter and therefore nomination paper was rejected. An appeal under section 152A of the said Act was preferred by the 1st respondent. Neither the present petitioner nor the candidates who had filled in the nomination were made parties to the appeal. On this issue, in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) in paragraph 96 the Court held thus: “9. As rightly submitted by the learned advocates for the respondents, the Division Bench has already held that in order to enable the party to challenge the decision of the Returning Officer as regards the rejection of the nomination paper, all other candidates are necessary W.P.NO.5218/05 (4) parties to the proceedings and, admittedly, in the case in hand neither at the stage of the appeal under section 152A of the said Act nor in this proceedings all the candidates have been joined as parties. On this count also, the petition is liable to be rejected.” 5. Thus, necessary parties were not impleaded to the appeal. Moreover, the petitioner had no opportunity to produce the documents which are annexed as Exhibit E (collectively) to show that the said society was a defaulter. The election of the managing committee was for a term of five years. Now the term of the elected managing committee must have expired. Therefore, no purpose will be served by passing an order of remand. 6. The petition must succeed and accordingly I pass the following order: : O R D E R : Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (A.S.OKA, J)