1 (WP823.11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.823 OF 2011 Mahadev Ramanna Ankalgi .... Petitioner. V/s Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur and others .... Respondents. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for the Petitioner. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel i/b YKS Legal for Respondent No.3. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 3rd March, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur who was pleased to allow the revision 2 (WP823.11) application filed by the Society and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. 3. Mr. Sakhare, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Society has submitted that the election programme has now been declared and the Petitioner has an opportunity to raise his objections regarding provisional voters list on/or before 21/3/2011 and the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies has to decide these objections on/or before 30/3/2011. 4. Application was made by the Petitioner before the Assistant Registrar stating therein that 235 persons were landless persons and the Society had wrongly given them loan of Rs 100/-. It was therefore prayed that their membership should be cancelled and it may be declared that they are not qualified to be the voters in the ensuing election. The Assistant Registrar, by his order observed that membership of these persons cannot be cancelled. He, however, observed that these persons would not be eligible to vote in the ensuing election. The Society preferred a revision application before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar in the impugned order has observed that the Assistant Registrar did not have jurisdiction to consider the question of membership or voting rights of these 235 persons. He has further observed that at the relevant time that question could be decided after the voters list is prepared. He, therefore, set aside the order 3 (WP823.11) passed by the Assistant Registrar. 5. In my view, there is no infirmity in the said order or reasons which are given by the Divisional Joint Registrar. It is always open for the Petitioner to raise the question of voting rights of these 235 persons before the returning officer. The election programme shows that the returning officer is an independent person and is, in fact, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Petitioner has sufficient time to raise his objections upto 21/3/2011 and, thereafter, the Assistant Registrar is given further time upto 30/3/2011 to decide these objections. No prejudice, therefore, would be caused to the Petitioner as a result of the impugned order. Hence, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. It is clarified that if objections are raised by the Petitioner regarding voting rights of these 235 persons, the returning officer shall decide the same after taking into consideration the contention of the Petitioner and the Society and the affected parties on merits and in accordance with law. 6. Petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (WP823.11)