( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6992 OF 2010 1. Jalgaon Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak .. Petitioners Sahakari Samaj Limited, Jalgaon, Through its President Shri Bhagwanrao s/o. Jagatrao Deshmukh, Age. 75 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Varangaon, Tq. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. 2. Shri Tanaji s/o. Keshavrao Bhoite, Age. 56 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner, and Agriculture, R/o. Bhoite Nagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The North Maharashtra University, Bambhori, Jalgaon District Jalgaon, Through its Registrar 3. Vijay Bhaskar Patil 4. Satish Chintaman Deokar Both R/o. Zilla Peth, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ( 2 ) Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. S.R. Bharad h/f. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 08.10.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER – B.R. GAVAI,J.] :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. It appears that there is dispute with regard to management of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No. 2 as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are claiming to be representing petitioner No.1 Management for the purpose of election to Senate and subsequent election to the Management Council. It appears that the Returning Officer for the said election/Registrar of respondent No.2 – University has already rejected claim of petitioner No.2 as well as respondent No.3. Being aggrieved thereby, petitioner No. 2 ( 3 ) as well as respondent No.3 have already preferred appeals, which are pending before the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor. 3. Mr. Hon, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that on account of non-inclusion of petitioner No.2 in the voters’ list by respondent – University, petitioner No.1 has been deprived of having representation either in Senate or Management Council. He, therefore, submits that before election process commences, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the appeals are decided. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that unless provisional voters’ list is prepared and only in case the University does not include name of the person, who feels that his name ought to have been included in the voters’ list, the grievance can be entertained. 5. In the peculiar circumstances, we find that the claim of petitioner No. 2 and respondent No.3 have already been rejected by the Registrar and the appeals are preferred before the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor. In that view of the ( 4 ) matter, we dispose of the petition with following directions :- i) The Hon’ble Vice Chancellor is directed to decide the appeals filed by petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks from today. ii) Petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3 shall appear before the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor on 18th October, 2010. As such, requirement of formal notice shall stand waived. iii) It is made clear that in the event the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor is satisfied that either petitioner No.2 or respondent No.3 are not entitled to represent petitioner No.1 – Management, said order shall not be given effect for a further period of two weeks from the receipt of communication by petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3. ( 5 ) 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. [A.A. SAYED,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] snk/2010/OCT10/wp6992.10