1 wp31.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 31 OF 2011 Laxman S/o Banshidhar Doiphode and others ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Hon holding for Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.P.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. N.D. Sonavane, advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent respondent nos. 5 to 16. Mr. S.Y. Patil, advocate for respondent nos. 17, 19, 21, 32, 45, 46, 50 and 54. Mr. R.N. Dhorde holding for Mr. V.R. Dhorde, advocate for respondent nos. 57 and 58. Mr. S.S. Choudhary, advocate for respondent nos. 59 and 60. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 21st March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Court has already issued notice for final disposal. Challenge is to addition of about 288 names in voters list. 2. Advocate Mr. Hon on behalf of petitioners has contended that the voters list was finalised on 08.10.2010 and thereafter the individuals were given liberty to have their names included by filing application in form no. 1A in accordance with Rule 6(5) of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 1971. None of these 288 filed any such 2 wp31.11 application. Applications moved were by some 3rd persons and joint or common. Signatures of persons named therein were not obtained and even the names of dead persons are included. The respondent no.2 Collector erred in entertaining such applications and in calling for report from the office of the District Deputy Registrar on it. According to him, addition ordered is therefore not in accordance with law and the Collector has exercised the jurisdiction not available to him in the matter. He has also urged that even out of 288 persons directed to be added about 11 to 12 persons have already expired. He is relying upon the additional affidavit filed before this Court on 18.03.2011 in support of this contention. 3. Advocate Mr. Dhorde for respondent nos. 57 and 58, Advocate Mr. Patil for respondent nos. 17, 19, 21, 32, 45, 46, 50 and 54 as also learned A.G.P. support the impugned order. Advocate Mr. Dhorde relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at "AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3982" ( Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha, and another V/s State of Maharashtra and others), to urge that preparation of electoral roll is an interim stage in election process and hence, this Court should not have interfere in the matter. He also relies upon the order of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 5 of 2011, to urge that this Court has found that the voters list had already attained finality and hence any challenge to it is possible only after election process is over. In the alternative and without prejudice he states that this Court can order deletion of those 11 or 12 persons found to be dead or then the petitioners can challenge the identity of voters at the time of actual poling. According to him, no prejudice is caused 3 wp31.11 to petitioners by addition of these 11 to 12 names of alleged deceased persons. 4. Advocate Mr. Hon has in reply relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at " A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court 1612" ( Bar Counsel of Delhi and another V/s Surjeet Singh and others), to urge that when the provisions of Rule 6(5) require some thing to be done in particular mode and manner, failure to do so, needs to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction and bar of alternate remedy is not available. He has also urged that in "2004 AIR (SC) 1329" ( Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V. and P. Sangh Ltd., and another V/s State of Maharashtra and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained its earlier view in "Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha, and another V/s State of Maharashtra and others" (cited supra) and interference in appropriate cases in writ jurisdiction is permitted. 5. It is apparent that in appropriate cases, this Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction in election process, if such interference is going to subserve its sanctity. Reference can be made to reasons of judgment of the Division Bench in "Dalsing S/o Shamsing Rajput V/s State of Maharashtra and others" {2006(3) Mh.L.J. 592}. 6. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Collector shows that he had on 08.10.2010 after finalisation of voters list permitted the individuals to apply for inclusion of their names in accordance with Rule 6(5) of the above mentioned 1971 Rules. Applications at Exhibit `H' (Collectively) with Writ Petition are filed 4 wp31.11 in pursuance thereof. These applications are not by individuals but common by group of reversal persons/members and show their thumb impression or signs. Many of names do not carry any signature/sign against it and against some names the endorsement shows that said person is dead. These applications have been treated as application under Rule 6(5) and the respondent no.2 Collector has called upon the respondent no.3 to submit its comments upon it as per provisions of Rule 6(6). After receipt of comments from the respondent no.3, the Collector has passed orders as required by Rule 6(7). Perusal of names added reveal that the names of those persons who had not signed/put thumb or then who were shown as dead have not been added by the office of the Collector. Total number of such applicants was about 398 and after rejecting claims of 110 persons, 288 persons are directed to be added. Therefore there is application of mind at this stage. 7. Before this Court, the petitioners have by filing additional affidavit pointed out that the persons whose names appeared at Sr. Nos. 343, 418, 419, 420, 421, 430, 436, 599, 600, 602, 605 and 609 are also dead. Death certificates in support are also filed. However, same are not relevant as law does not contemplate any deletion after impugned additions. 8. It is obvious that the Collector has considered the applications in the light of provisions of Rule 6(5) and thereafter as a result of enquiry, has added those names. 9. In Writ Petition no. 5 of 2011, this very dispute was looked into and the relief claimed before the Division Bench of this Court was to direct the Collector to include the names of petitioners as 5 wp31.11 voters. The petitioners therein had contended that they were interesting in depositing the deficit share value. This Court has after considering the reply filed and after hearing the learned Counsel for Karkhana found that efficacious remedy after the elections was available to the petitioners and therefore, has refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The present dispute pertains to very same Karkhana. 10. The impugned order has been passed under jurisdiction conferred by Rule 6(5) upon the Collector and hence I am not inclined to interfere in the Petition in writ jurisdiction. Challenge by petitioners raise some disputed questions including one whether, the applications as filed can be treated as individuals application or not ? Question whether some third persons arranged to move such applications and if yes, what is its effect also arises, hence, with liberty to the petitioners to raise all objections after the elections are over, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp31.11