1 caw2278.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2278 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5857 OF 2010 Shivaji Dashrath Khot & Ors. ...Applicants vs. Appasaheb Nalavade & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.Amit Borkar for the applicants Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for respondent no.1 Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent nos. 2 to 4 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and learned A.G.P for respondent nos.2 to 4. 2 The present civil application is filed by the petitioners in the writ petition. The petitioners in the writ petition are members of the 1st respondent-Co- operative Sugar Factory. An application was made by the petitioners on 26th April 2010 to the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) praying that inquiry under sections 11/ 22(1-A) r/w section 89-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) may be initiated and the same should be completed before publishing voters list for elections of Board of Directors of the said sugar factory. In the application dated 26th April 2010, it was pointed out that the previous election was held in the year 2004-2005. It is contended that though the application was made on 19th March 2010 for supplying list of members to the 1st 2 caw2278.sxw respondent and substantial fee was paid, the 1st respondent did not supply the list of members. It was alleged in the application that since the year 2003-2004, majority of the members who were shown to have been enrolled are not cultivating the land and are not growing the sugarcane. It is alleged that on the basis of the false and bogus documents, their membership has been shown. It is alleged that disqualified persons have been shown as members and therefore, inquiry in that behalf is called for. On the basis of the said application, Regional Joint Director (Sugar) passed an order on 19th May 2010 by which he appointed one Mr.D.N.Pawar, Special Auditor Class-I of the Co-operative Societies who is third respondent in this petition to scrutinize the record of the 1st respondent Sugar Factory relating to membership of the members enrolled from the year 2004-2005. He was directed to submit a report within a period of 30 days from the said order. The said order was challenged by the 1st respondent by filing a revision application. In the revision application, an application for interim relief was made. By order dated 23rd June 2010 which has been impugned in the writ petition, the revisional authority stayed the operation of the order dated 19th May 2010 and fixed the revision application for hearing. By interim order dated 9th August 2010 passed by this Court, the order of interim relief passed by the revisional authority has been stayed. 3 The learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to what is observed by this Court in paragraph 5 of the order dated 9th August 2010. This Court observed that prima facie this Court was satisfied that the 1st respondent does not want its membership to be scrutinized by the Registrar before the ensuing election. The learned counsel pointed out that Exh.F to 3 caw2278.sxw the writ petition which shows that the final list of the voters will be published on 9th September 2010. It is submitted that though under the order dated 19th May 2010, the 3rd respondent was under an obligation to submit a report within a period of 30 days, inquiry has not been completed. He submitted that there is already prima facie observation made by this Court that the 1st respondent wants to avoid the scrutiny of the membership. He submitted that the very object of ordering scrutiny will be defeated if the voters list is allowed to be published on 9th September 2010 before the inquiry is concluded. He therefore prayed that relief in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) be granted. He relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Karbhari Maruti Agawan & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [1995 (1) Bombay Cases Reporter 596 ] and submitted that in such a case the writ Court can always postpone the programme for a reasonable time. 4 After the application was heard for some time, this Court directed the learned A.G.P to take instructions as regards the time required for scrutiny. After taking instructions, the learned A.G.P stated that scrutiny of documents relating to membership of 6000 members is required to be made and it will take time of more than one year. 5 The learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submitted that if such inordinate time is consumed, the very object of scrutiny will be defeated and in the election large numbers of ineligible voters will be permitted to vote. He submitted that unless the inquiry is concluded, the voters list cannot be permitted to be finalised. 4 caw2278.sxw 6 I have considered the submissions. Even in the writ petition, the case made out by the applicants- petitioners is that last election was held in the year 2004-2005. There does not seem to be dispute that the dispute is as regards membership of more than 6000 members who are enrolled from the year 2004-2005. Though estimate given by the learned A.G.P may not be correct, it is obvious that scrutiny of documents of such large numbers of members cannot not be completed within a period of few weeks and it may require longer time to conclude inquiry and to submit a report. 7 In the present case, therefore, the question is of not merely postponing the programme of election for few days but if the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants are accepted, the programme will have to be postponed at least by few months or by a year. The first prayer in the application is that scrutiny and inquiry should be ordered to be completed by 7th September 2010 and the 2nd prayer is for postponing the inquiry under Rule 6 (4) till inquiry as directed by order dated 19th May 2010 is completed. Considering the magnitude of the inquiry, said reliefs cannot be granted. However, the 3rd respondent will have to expedite the process of scrutiny and inquiry 8 Hence, the Civil Application is disposed of by passing the following order : (i) The application is rejected. However, the 2nd and 3rd respondent are directed to conclude the inquiry as expeditiously as possible. The third respondent will file a report as regards the status of the inquiry within a period of three weeks from today. The report shall be filed in this Court 5 caw2278.sxw through the learned A.G.P. (ii) For consideration of the report, the writ petition shall be placed under the caption of Orders on 28 th September 2010. 9 At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the finalisation of the voters list may be made subject to further orders which may be passed in the writ petition. Writ petition is pending for final hearing. Hence, it is not necessary to issue such directions. JUDGE