1 WP 6721.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6721 OF 2011 Dnyaneshwar S/o Raosaheb Patil Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Patil Galli, Mangalwar Peth, Paranda, Tq. Paranda, Dist. : Osmanabad. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Hanumant S/o Pandurang Kolate Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Rohakal, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. The Osmanabad Dist. Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Osmanabad through its Managing Director, Head Office, Main Road, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Osmanabad. 4. The Collector Osmanabad. 5. The Registrar of Birth & Death Nagar Parishad, Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur, 2 WP 6721.2011 - [ J ] 6. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Advocate forthe petitioner. Mr. N.B.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.D.Salunke & Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad, Advocates for Resp. No. 1 Mr. S.Y.Mahajan, Advocate for Resp. No.5. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 30/11/2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent no. 1 had filed Election Petition before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad challenging the election of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was disqualified as per Section 73-FF (1) (vii) and (ii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The said Election Petition came to be allowed by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3 WP 6721.2011 - [ J ] 3. Mr. V.D.Sapkal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings has been conducted by the Additional Commissioner in haste and without having regard to the procedure. The fundamental and cardinal principles of natural justice were not adhered. The learned counsel contends that on 2/9/2011, the petitioner cross examined the respondent till 4.00 p.m. Thereafter, an application was filed seeking witness summons. The said application was rejected by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that no evidence order is passed against the petitioner. Even the application seeking adjournment of one day for arguing the matter was rejected on the ground that the matter is for hearing and respondent no. 6 abruptly closed the matter and declared that he is passing the order on that day itself. A copy of the Judgment was thereafter made available at 10.00 p.m. The said order was passed on 2/9/2011 with an intention that the petitioner should not be in a position to participate in the election of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman which were to be held on 3/9/2011. Such an act of the respondent no. 6 is against the principles of justice, equity and good conscious. The learned counsel contends that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside with heavy cost. 4. Mr. V.D.Salunke, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 supports the order and submits that ample opportunity was given to the 4 WP 6721.2011 - [ J ] petitioner. The petitioner was only protracting the matter and in spite of the fact that ample opportunity was given, the petitioner did not cross examine the respondent and thereafter no cross order so also no evidence order was passed. In spite of that, the petitioner was given opportunity to cross examine the respondent. There was no order setting aside no evidence order and the petitioner intentionally and deliberately did not conduct the matter on the said date as the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman were scheduled on the next day. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner can not get premium over his acts of causing delay. The proceedings would show that sufficient opportunity was given. For more than one ( 1 ) year the proceedings were pending before the Additional Commissioner. In case, this Court comes to the conclusion to remand the matter, then heavy cost be imposed upon the petitioner. 5. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader supports the order and submits that no fault can be found in the procedure adopted by the respondent no. 6 in as much as proper opportunity was given to the petitioner and the proceedings would show that number of adjournments were granted to the petitioner and then no cross order was passed. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioner, the said order was set aside and still opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine. The order of no evidence against the petitioner was never set aside and the 5 WP 6721.2011 - [ J ] petitioner did not have right to lead any further evidence. 6. I have heard Mr. S.Y. Mahajan, the learned counsel for respondent no. 5. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned order. 8. The dispute between the parties was with regard to the election of the present petitioner as a Director of respondent no. 2 – Bank. The present Respondent no. 1 had filed Election Petition somewhere in July, 2009. It is trite that the Election Petitions have to be decided expeditiously. It is a fact that the present Election Petition was pending for almost two ( 2 ) years. The record shows that earlier opportunity was given and the matter was adjourned on one or the other count. No cross order was passed on 1/6/2011 and the same was set aside on 26/8/2011 on an application of the petitioner. There were some applications to decide preliminary issues, but the said applications were not entertained. It appears that one Writ Petition was also filed before this Court. 9. It appears that earlier opportunity was given to the petitioner. On 2/9/2011, the present petitioner cross examined the respondent and 6 WP 6721.2011 - [ J ] on that day, time was sought for issuing witness summons and for arguments. When on 2/9/2011 the cross examination was completed in the evening, then the principle of reasonableness demand that some reasonable time is to be granted to the party. The matter deals with the right of a person to remain in the office after having been democratically elected to the said post. 10. There are rival contentions. The parties are alleging against each other. The respondent is alleging that the delay in the proceedings has been caused on behalf of the petitioner, whereas the petitioner alleges that no proper opportunity was given to him. As observed above, initially adjournments were granted to the petitioner as it would be seen that for two ( 2 ) years, the election petition was pending and even no cross order was passed in the month of June, 2011. The said order was set aside on 26/8/2011. However, the Additional Commissioner committed lot of haste on 2/9/2011 to decide the matter on the said date itself i.e. the day when the cross examination of the respondent was concluded. At least for arguments, reasonable time should have been given by the Additional Commissioner. The same would have been in tune with the principles of reasonableness. 11. Be that as it may. Taking into account the above conspectus 7 WP 6721.2011 - [ J ] of the matter, I deem it appropriate to grant opportunity to the petitioner to contest the said Election Petition on merits. 12. In the result, I pass the following order : The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated to respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 6 shall decide the said Election Petition afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, if they propose to adduce the same. The parties shall appear before the respondent no. 6 on 15/12/2011 and the Additional Commissioner shall thereafter decide the said Election Petition within the period of three ( 3 ) months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. I am not inclined to impose cost on any party in view of the fact that fault lies on the part of the petitioner and respondent no. 6 in deciding the matter. 13. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 6721.2011 - [ J ] 8 WP 6721.2011 - [ J ]