1 WP 5.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5 OF 2011 Abasaheb S/o Sandipan Gaikwad & another .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for Resp. No. 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 10/01/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners herein pray for directions to respondent nos. 2 and 3 or any other competent authority acting on their behalf to include their names as members as per the list Exh. ‘ G ’ to the petition for electing Board of Directors of respondent no. 4 – Karkhana. 3. Mr. R.N.Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2 WP 5.2011 share value of membership of Karkhana has been increased and the petitioners are interested to deposit the deficit share value. The learned counsel further submits that the names of the petitioners are included in the list of membership and they desire to contest the election of Board of Directors. Respondent no. 4 is not taking any action on the application of the petitioners just to deprive the petitioners from participating in the election. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment in the case of Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and others V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. - 543. 4. Respondent no. 4 filed affidavit in reply. The deponent contends in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 as under : “ 4. I say that the Karkhana had submitted provisional voters’ list to the District Deputy Registrar on 20/8/2010. The Collector, Beed on 21/9/2010 had directed the Karkhana to publish the provisional voters’ list for inviting the claims and objections. The objections to the voters’ list were to be raised between the period from 22/9/2010 to 1/10/2010 and the final list was published by the Collector on 8/10/2010. I say that the present petition is filed in this Hon’ble Court on 3/1/2011 i.e. after publication of the final voters’ list on 8/10/2010. The petitioners, therefore, have approached this Hon’ble Court after 3 WP 5.2011 finalization of the voters’ list. 5. I say that the Collector in accordance with provisions of Rule 6 (5) of the Elections Rules of 1971 had given opportunity to the members whose names were not appearing in the final voters’ list to prefer application within a period of 15 days in prescribed form 1-A. The petitioners have not preferred an application in the prescribed form 1-A. The Collector, had tried to entertained the 52 objections which were not in the form 1-A and has passed order on 16/12/2010, whereby directing to include the names of 288 voters in the final voters’ list. I say that the said order of the Collector is under challenge in Writ Petition No. 31 of 2011 filed by Laxman Bansidhar Doiphode and others and the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to issue notice before admission and all further stages of the elections are made subject to the result of the Writ Petition. I say that in view of pendency of Writ Petition No. 31 of 2011 and the order passed by this Hon’ble Court the order passed by the Collector on 3/12/2010 is subjudiced before this Hon’ble Court ”. 4 WP 5.2011 5. Mr. V.D.Hon, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 – Karkhana submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the Karkhana, which is Co-operative Society. The voters’ list is finalized and the election programme would be declared soon. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are entitled to inspect the relevant documents of the Karkhana under Section 32 of the Co-operative Societies Act. If there are dues, the petitioners are entitled to pay the dues. The learned counsel submits that the voters’ list is finalized on 8/10/2010. 6. In light of the reply filed by respondent no. 4, we find that the petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy and they may resort to the same. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the matter and the present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. Needless to state that the observations made in this Writ Petition shall not affect any other proceedings. 8. The learned Govt. Pleader to communicate this order to the Regional Jt. Director of Sugar, Aurangabad. The parties to act upon copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Shirastedar. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] knp/WP 5.2011