1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.482/2011 in Writ Petition No.3703/2011 (D) [Rajendra Sahebrao Wankhede and others .vrs. The Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Society, Amravati and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2011. Heard Shri V.A. Kothale, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri N.A. Gawande, learned counsel who was heard by the learned Single Judge and Mrs. K.S. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2. Learned Single Judge has noticed that the present appellants had not borrowed any loan after 11.4.2004 till next election held thereafter on 21.3.2010. Shri Kothale invites attention to definition of non borrower as contained in bye-laws to urge that the definition is only relevant indication to find out who is the borrower. According to him term borrower has not been defined expressly. He further contends that in election conducted in 2010 the appellants have 2 been duly elected. There was no challenge to their election by any election petition and after one year, when they became office bearers, this challenge have been raised. He invites attention to the communication dated 23.2.2011 addressed by the Chief Executive Officer of respondent no.4-Bank to cooperative department to show that the loan was not released. Effort is to demonstrate is though appellants had sought release of loan, it was not released. After hearing respective counsel, we find that this communication dated 23.2.2011 was not pressed into service before the learned Single Judge. The affidavit filed before this court dated 17.10.2011 reveals that loans availed by the appellants were prior to 11.4.2004 and have been repaid after the said election. If definition on which the appellants are placing reliance is to be looked into, by necessary implication, it follows that the borrower will be required to be construed as a member who has borrowed loan after 11.4.2004. In this situation, we do not see any jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande