wp948.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.948 OF 2011 1) Bhaskar s/o Ambadas Jadhav, R/o-Jadhavjawla, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed, 2) Kundlik s/o Namdev Shinde, R/o-Jadhavjawla, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed, 3) Satish s/o Bhujangrao Jadhav, R/o-Jadhavjawla, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector Beed, At Beed, 2) District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, At Beed, Tq. & Dist-Beed, 3) The Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, At Beed, Tq. & Dist-Beed, 4) The Returning Officer, Jadhavjawla Seva Sahakari Sanstha, At Jadhav Jawala, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed, wp948.11 2 5) Jadhavjawla Seva Sahakari Sanstha, Through it's Secretary at Jadhav Jawla, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.N.P. Bangar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri.H.P. Jadhav Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner challenges election programme issued on 3rd January, 2011 to elect Managing Committee of Jadhavjawla Seva Sahakari Sanstha, at Jadhav Jawala, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed. In the grounds of Petition, the Petitioner raised issue of non publication of election programme in newspaper. wp948.11 3 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, during the course of his argument, submitted that the term of the Managing Committee of the Respondent Society, expired on 15th December, 2010. Under the Rules, returning officer ought to have been appointed three months prior to the expiry of term. But the Managing Committee appointed returning officer on 3rd December, 2010, which was later on approved by the Assistant Registrar. The second submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is, that in absence of publication of the election programme in the newspaper, the entire election programme is vitiated. 4. The learned A.G.P. submits that the election programme was published by the returning officer in newspaper namely, "Marathwada Sangharsh", on 3rd January, 2011. The learned A.G.P. further submits that there is no material on record as on today, to ascertain as to under wp948.11 4 which category the Respondent society falls. The process of election is already commenced and today i.e. 18th February, 2011, is the date fixed for publication of list of candidates with election symbols. 5. Shri. Jadhav, the learned counsel appearing for returning officer, submits that it is not mandatory to publish the election programme in newspaper, even then it was published in weekly newspaper. Alternatively, the counsel points out the Panchnama was drawn in respect of publication of election programme and its pasting on the notice board. The said Panchnama is signed by the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for respective parties. The counsel for the Petitioners, on the issue of appointment of returning officer prior to three months of the expiry of the term, placed reliance on a reported wp948.11 5 Judgment in the case of Indranath s/o Raosaheb Thorat vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006 (6) Mh. L.J. 140. It is not possible to ascertain, in which category the Respondent society is placed. It requires deeper scrutiny in view of the provisions of Rule 56-L of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Rules, 1961, as the said Rules are incorporated under CHAPTER VA under caption "Election To Notified Societies Etc.." 7. It is the contention of the Petitioners that their right to file nominations is affected, as they were not aware of the election programme. It is pointed out by the Respondents, that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 signed a Panchnama, meaning thereby, that they were aware of the election programme. 8. The election process is already set in motion in accordance with the programme, which is annexed at Exhibit A. Today i.e. 18th February, wp948.11 6 2011, is the date fixed for publication of list with election symbols. Considering all these facts and circumstances, in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, we are not inclined to entertain the grievance of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy to challenge the election, in case the Petitioners desire so. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. 9. At this stage, the counsel for the Petitioners prayed that in case the Petitioners decide to avail of alternate remedy, the observations made in this order shall not affect the case of the Petitioners. The observations are prima facie in nature. In case the Petitioners resort to statutory remedies, the observations made in this order, shall not adversely affect the case of the Petitioners. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/FEB11/wp948.11