1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1381 OF 2011 (Nanaji Kawadu Chudhari and another vs. Election Officer, Sewa Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A.H. Lohiya, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. ------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 13, 2011 The above petition has been filed after the elections in question were held on 9/1/2011 and the new Body has come into existence by virtue of the said elections. It is the grievance of the petitioners that behind their back, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein have obtained an interim order of the Cooperative Court on 7/1/2011 injuncting the petitioners from participating in the election process. Relying upon 2 the result of the elections, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that some of the voters even voted for the petitioners, but the result was not declared in view of the injunction granted by the Cooperative Court, which was passed without the petitioners being made parties to the dispute in question. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Cooperative Court could not have passed the impugned order during the election process. It is required to be noted that the petitioners became aware of the elections being over on 9/1/2011. However, the instant petition has been filed on 14/3/2011. The explanation given is that some time was lost in obtaining copies, etc. As indicated above, the new Body has already come in existence and is operating for the last five months. Pertinently, none of the persons, who have been elected, have been joined as party respondents to the above petition. The petitioners have also not taken any recourse against the order passed by the Cooperative Court immediately after 9/1/2011 when they became aware of the order 3 passed by the Cooperative Court. Be that as it may, the petition filed after a period of two months after the elections are over, in my view, cannot be entertained. It is for the petitioners to adopt such proceedings as are permissible in law to ventilate their grievances in respect of the said elections. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Subhash Fakirchand Agarwal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others (1994 Mh.L.J. 487) is misplaced in the fact situation of the present case. In the said case, as can be seen, the petitioners had approached the Court immediately as the elections had taken place on 25/4/1993 and the order passed by the Cooperative Court was dated 23/4/1993 and the judgment of this Court is dated 28/6/1993. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj 4