1 W.P. No.8731 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.8731 Of 2010 Sarjerao s/o Bappaji Khodse. .. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. A.A. Nimbalkar, Advocate, holding for Shri. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. D.J. Choudhari, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Shri. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ---------- With Writ Petition No.7663 of 2010 Mahesh s/o Chandrakant Khodse. .. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents. --------- Shri. V.R. Bhumkar, Advocate, holding for Shri. R.P. Bhumkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. D.J. Choudhari, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Shri. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. -------- 2 W.P. No.8731 of 2010 CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE: 8th AUGUST 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) In Writ Petition No.8731 of 2010 the petitioner impugns letter dated 20-9-2010 issued by respondent No.5- Assistant Returning Officer to respondent No.2-Assistant Registrar by which he gave intimation regarding the elections conducted by him of the Managing Committee of respondent No.3–Society for the period 2010-2011 to 2015-2016. The petitioner also seeks declaration that respondent No.5 had no authority to hold the elections. The petitioner further prayed for directions to respondent Nos.1 and 3 to appoint Government Officer to hold elections of respondent No.3 – Society. 3) We have perused the letter dated 20-9-2010. By this letter, respondent No.5–Assistant Returning Officer informed the Assistant Registrar regarding the process and result of the elections. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 – Society and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 state that after the elections were held in September 2010 newly elected Managing Committee took the charge and since 3 W.P. No.8731 of 2010 then they have been in charge of the society. None of the elected members of the Managing Committee are made party to the writ petition. 4) Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, as a matter of fact, elections were not conducted at all, as claimed by respondent No.5–Assistant Returning Officer and that he created false record to show that the elections were conducted. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, in our opinion, cannot be entertained and examined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since it involves disputed questions of facts. It was open to the petitioner to raise challenge, as raised in the present petition, at appropriate stage. The petitioner also had an alternate remedy of challenging the election which he chose not to avail, and filed the present writ petition. The petitioner, though filed this petition in September 2010 itself, did not move for interim order. In other words, no interim order of whatsoever nature is passed in the present writ petition and as a result thereof, the Managing Committee took the charge immediately after the elections that where held in September 2010. The members of the Managing Committee are not made party in the present writ petition. In the circumstances, in our opinion, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, fails and dismissed as 4 W.P. No.8731 of 2010 such. 5) In so far as Writ Petition No.7663 of 2010 is concerned, in our opinion, it has become infructuous. By this writ petition filed in August 2010, the petitioner sought directions to respondent No.2 to appoint Returning Officer to hold elections of respondent No.3–Society. In the circumstances, this writ petition is also dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- Sd/- (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.) rsl