1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2962 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2962 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri Anjanwatikar for the Petitioner, Smt. V.A.Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 Advocate Mr. T.G.Gaikwad for Respondent No.4 and Advocate Shri S.S.Thombre for Respondent No.5. 2. On the date of scrutiny objection of petitioner that Respondent No.5 is defaulter was accepted because of certificate issued by Secretary dated 23rd March, 2011. Aggrieved by that rejection, Respondent No.5 filed appeal under section 152 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Appellate Authority noted that there was receipt issued by society in favour of Respondent No.5 on 11th February, 2011 and the amount alleged to be in arrears was already paid. It, therefore, directed acceptance of his nomination. This order is questioned by the petitioner. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2962 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner ought to have been joined as party respondent in that appeal and in any case the Appellate Authority ought to have verified records of society before reaching any conclusion. Even today, contention is Respondent NO.5 still continues to be defaulter. Shri Gaikwad as also Shri Thombre support the impugned order. Shri Gaikwad appearing for society points out that amount was already paid on 11th February, 2011 but that entry was not carried in relevant registers and hence Secretary issued certificate dated 23rd March, 2011 to the petitioner. 4. Perusal of impugned order dated 24th March, 2011 rejecting nomination paper of Respondent NO.5 reveals that petitioner then had relied upon said certificate issued by Secretary on 23rd March, 2011 and the representative of Respondent No.5 viz. Shri 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2962 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Ashok Waghmare had produced a certificate also dated 23rd March, 2011 mentioning that there were no arrears but only current demand was to be paid. Impugned order mentions that certificate produced by Shri Waghmare is also dated 23rd March, 2011. That certificate, produced by Shri Waghmare, is not filed along with present writ petition. However, learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that date thereof mentioned as 23rd March, 2011 is incorrect and it has to be 11th February, 2011. He, however, fairly states that this mistake in date is not stated anywhere in writ petition. 5. The said order dated 24th March, 2011 then records a letter to the society written by Returning Officer and reply thereto by Administrator. The said reply as mentioned in impugned order discloses that account position as on 30th October, 2010 was communicated to the Returning Officer which 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2962 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. disclosed outstanding amount of Rs.3,150/-. 6. The account position as on 31st October, 2010 is totally irrelevant in view of the alleged subsequent payment by Respondent No.5 on 11th February, 2011. The receipt issued to Respondent No.5 by the society reveals that on that day amount of Rs.3,450/- was paid by him. 7. All these facts therefore clearly show that a disputed question arises for determination and hence in present jurisdiction no cognizance thereof can be taken. 8. Hence, with liberty in favour of the petitioner to take further appropriate steps after the results of election are declared, present writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:20/04/2011. ans/2962