1 (WP1408/2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1408 OF 2011 Shri Sikandar Ismail Naikwadi .... Petitioner. V/s Kamdhenu Sahakari Doodh Vyavasaik Sanstha Maryadeet Mouje Vadgaon, Taluka Hatkanangale Dist. Kolhapur and Others .... Respondents. Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the Petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 22nd February, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the State. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has filed affidavit of service. It is submitted that in spite of attempt being made by the Petitioner to serve Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, they have refused to accept the service. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that his nomination 2 (WP1408/2011) form for election of the Managing Committee of the Respondent – Society was rejected only on the ground that the Petitioner had not produced income certificate. He submitted that the appeal is provided against the order of Returning Officer under section 152-A and, accordingly, the appeal was filed by the Petitioner. However, the said appeal also was dismissed. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had produced a certificate issued by Gram Sevak in which it is mentioned that the Petitioner falls below the poverty line and his name is mentioned at Serial No.103 of the said list. It is submitted that so far as the certificate regarding income is concerned, it was issued by Tahsildar on 1/2/2011. He invited my attention to the order and the Notification issued under section 73B and submitted that in the said Notification the person below poverty line was defined as person whose total income did not exceed Rs 3600/- in rural areas. He submitted that there is no provision made as to who should issue the said certificate. It is, therefore, submitted that certificate issued by Gram Sevak ought to have been accepted. It is submitted that the said certificate was produced alongwith the nomination form. It is contended that the appellate authority had not considered the said certificate and had wrongly come to the conclusion that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar was produced subsequently. 3 (WP1408/2011) 5. On the other hand, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the election process has begun and last date for finalization of the list of candidates is over and election is now scheduled to be held on 1/3/2011 and, therefore, this court should not interfere with the impugned order. 6. In the present case, Respondent – Society is an ordinary Society. The appellate authority, while rejecting the application, has observed that the Petitioner was not present at the time of scrutiny and further has given reasons why it felt that nomination form of the petitioner should not be accepted. Since the election process has now commenced and the list of final candidates was published on 29/12/2010, in my view, it will not be proper now to interfere and set aside the impugned order while exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Petition is therefore dismissed. Petitioner may file election petition after the election is over. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (WP1408/2011)