1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 906/2010. Ashok Narayan Vaidya .vrs. The Election Officer, Chikhali Urban Cooperative Bank and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 26, 2010. Shri S.M. Ukey, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Rohit Deo, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Shri A.A. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.2, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 5 and Shri S. Paliwal, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Contention of petitioner is that nomination paper of respondent no.4 was rejected because of objection raised by petitioner pointing out that there was no minimum credit balance of Rs. 5000/- for past two years. Appeal against the same has been decided without service of any notice upon the petitioner and hence in breach of principles of natural justice. He contends that this breach itself is sufficient to set aside the Appellate order by which the nomination paper of respondent no.4 is directed to be accepted. In the alternative he points out that as per Bye law no.18 of respondent no.2 Bank, as the Bank has got lien on amount of Rs.5000/-, 2 amount of Rs.5000/- accepted as sufficient compliance with provisions of Bye law no.31[2] by the Appellate Court is unsustainable and as respondent no.4 does not hold necessary credit balance the nomination paper needs to be rejected. Shri Paliwal, learned counsel on the other hand relies on the statement on account issued by the Bank to show that account of respondent no.4 has got minimum credit balance of Rs.5000/- for past over two years. Shri Gupta, learned counsel relies upon the provisions of Bye no.18 which create lien in favour of respondent no.2 Bank on that amount. The question involved is whether the amount in account of a member on which the bank has got lien can be treated as credit balance. The Appellate Authority has taken one view of the matter and I am not inclined to interfere with that view at this stage. The said question is kept open for consideration by the Competent Forum. Writ Petition is therefore disposed in view of above discussion with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.