1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1520 OF 2010 (Kisan Rambhau Bhoyar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 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. APRIL 01, 2010. Heard Shri Bhuibhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Adgokar, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Chambhare, learned counsel, who is present in the Court states that he can waive notice for Respondent No. 4 – Secretary. Shri Bhuibhar, learned counsel states that yesterday he has moved for deletion of said respondent but as Respondent No. 4 is present before this Court, he seeks restoration of Secretary of Society back as Respondent No. 4. Accordingly, Respondent No. 4 is allowed to be added back as party respondent No.4. Shri Chambhare, learned counsel has filed reply affidavit on behalf of said respondent No. 4. The contention of Shri Bhuibhar, learned counsel is, there is no provision either in Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act or then in Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, which govern the elections of Respondent No. 4 (Notified society) requiring 2 seconder also to be a person not in arrears. He points out that nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected on 12.03.2010 only because his seconder is in arrears of loan. Though Respondent No. 3 – Returning Officer has not expressly mentioned that his seconder is in arrears, the appellate authority has clarified it in its order. The appellate authority has held that candidate, his proposer as also seconder should not be in arrears. The respective counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4, counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned AGP do not dispute that nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected because his seconder is found in arrears. Yesterday, this Court has heard the petitioner and the learned AGP and the matter was adjourned to today. Shri Kulsange, learned counsel for Respondent No.3. and Shri Chambre, learned counsel have addressed the Court. The counsel for the respondents are not in a position to show any provision which requires the seconder also to be not in arrears. They have filed their submissions on record. The submissions show availability of alternate remedy under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and poor financial condition of the society. The Secretary of the Society and also Returning Officer are present in the Court to assist their counsel. The fact that the petitioner has filed 3 nomination paper for contesting the election scheduled on 4th April 2010 from Belori constituency is not in dispute. As there is no provision that his seconder also from the same constituency should not be in arrears of loan, rejection of nomination paper cannot be sustained. The orders dated 12.03.2010 and 25.03.2010 are, therefore, quashed and set aside. Respondents No. 3 & 4 state that though they are in a position to allot symbol and print ballot paper again before 4th April 2010, the society does not have necessary funds. Shri Bhuibhar, learned counsel is disputing this. However, in order to show bonafides of the petitioner and without prejudice to his contentions, the petitioner offers to defray the expenditure of printing of 81 ballot papers again so as to enable him to contest the election. The said expenditure is stated to be of Rs.2,000/- approximately. The petitioner to deposit that amount with Respondent No. 4 – Secretary during the course of the day and Respondents No. 3 & 4 shall get necessary ballot papers printed so as to include the name and symbol of the petitioner for the election scheduled on 4th April 2010. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to the parties. JUDGE *GS.