1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 1065 OF 2010 Devidas Anandrao Pingale .. Petitioner Vs. Maharashtra State Co-op Bank Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A. Y. Sakhare Sr. Counsel i/b Mr. P. N. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. Tushar Sonawane for Respondent No.9. Ms. P. S. Cardozo AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 & 11. Mr. Rameshwar Gite for Respondent No.6. Mr. R. M. Haridas i/b Mr. Sumit V. Khaire for Res. No.7. Mr. N. V. Walawalkar Sr. Counsel i/b Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for Respondent No.10. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. Date : 22nd February, 2010. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged his disqualification at the election of respondent No.1 which was held on 30th January, 2010. The petitioner has been disqualified on the ground that the society which he represented being respondent No.7 was a defaulter. The petitioner claims that the society was not a defaulter. The default is to the tune of Rs.57 lacs. The respondent No.6 society made payment of that amount on the penultimate day in the bank under several pay-in-slips. The pay-in-slips 2 show 2 rubber stamps of 29th January, 2010 and 30th January, 2010 the amount was “received late” in the bank on 29th January, 2010. Hence, it went in the clearing of 30th January, 2010. The election was on 30th January, 2010. It was known to the petitioner that respondent No.7 would be disqualified if the payment of that amount is not shown and hence, the payment was made. Yet the payment has not been shown to the returning officer if it was truly made as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner wanted time for two days. 2. The petitioner’s claim upon the right of natural justice is completely misconceived. When the amount is paid in the bank a day before the election and was late for that clearing and when the receipt is stamped 30th January, 2010 and the petitioner would have had counterfoils showing the first stamping of 29th January, 2010. Nothing prevented the petitioner from producing it before the returning officer on that day. The petitioner is rightly shown as defaulter as on the date of the election in the absence of proof of deposit of the amounts. 3 3. The petition lacks bonafides. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.)