1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2010 AGAINST WRIT PETITION NO. 2066 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2010 Ms. Shobha Thaksen Vaity. ... Appellant. V/s. Ekvira Mauli Co-op. Hsg. Ltd. And Ors. ... Respondents. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2010 AGAINST WRIT PETITION NO. 2065 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2010 Mr. Bhalchandra Dattatraya Meher. ... Appellant. V/s. Ekvira Mauli Co-op. Hsg. Ltd. ... Respondents. Ms. Rajani Iyer a/w. Mr. Badrishetye and Mr. H.S. Anand i/b. Ms. Sarita Donde for the Appellant. Mr. V.D. Patil for Respondent 1. Mr. Vinod Jadhav for Respondent 2. Ms. Neha Bhide for Respondents 3 and 4. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 31st MARCH 2010. P.C. :- At the request of the learned Advocate and looking to the urgency in the aforesaid matters, both these Letters Patent Appeals are taken up and heard together. Though there are some office objections, in the interest of justice, at 2 the request of the learned Advocate, the said objections are waived and the Appeals are taken up for hearing. 2. The grievance in both the matters made by the Appellants is to the effect that the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, did not permit the Appellants to contest the election for the post of Managing Committee Member of Respondent No.1 – Society. 3. We have heard the learned Advocates and also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. At the outset, we find that the names of the Appellants had not been included in the list of the voters. The list of the voters had been published on 7th January 2010. As per the election programme, if anybody had any objection with regard to inclusion or exclusion of a name in the list of voters, the concerned person ought to have raised an objection with regard thereto between 27th January 2010 and 10th February 2010. 4. It is an admitted fact that the names of the Appellants in both the Appeals had not been included in the list of voters. It 3 is also an admitted fact that the Appellants did not raise any objection with regard to non-inclusion of their names in the list of voters. 5. Inspite of the fact that their names were not included in the list of voters, they wanted to file the nomination form which had been objected. Ultimately, the Appellants had approached the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, G/North Ward, by filing an appeal u/s. 152A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as the Appellants had not been permitted to file their nomination forms. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society was pleased to give directions that the nomination forms filed by the Appellants be considered and the said order dated 8th March 2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, G/North Ward had been challenged by the Respondent – Society by filing the afore-stated two Writ Petitions. After hearing the concerned Advocates, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order whereby the Appellants have not been permitted to contest the election. The said interim order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23rd March 2010 has been challenged in both these Appeals. 4 6. The learned Senior Counsel Ms. Iyer has submitted that injustice has been caused to the Appellants because the Appellant – Original Respondent No.1 Ms. Shobha Vaity was initially member of a Society, which had merged into the Respondent – Society. As the Appellants were very much members in the aforesaid Society, their names could not have been excluded from the voters list of the Respondent - Society. 7. It has been noted hereinabove that the names of the Appellants had not been included in the list of the voters, therefore, in our opinion, they had no right to vote and contest the elections unless their names were included in the list of voters. The Appellants had not raised any objection when the list of voters had been published. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society ought not to have passed any order directing the Respondent – Society or the Returning Officer to accept the nomination forms of the Appellants, especially when their names were not included in 5 the list of voters. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in not permitting the Appellants to contest the election. It is true that normally in the Election Process, this Court does not interfere once the election programme is notified. In the instant case, the facts are that the persons whose names were not included in the list of voters were being permitted to contest the election. In our opinion, this could not have been done. For the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the Appellants have not been permitted to contest the election and we are in agreement with the said reasons. 9. In our opinion, the prima facie view expressed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and this Court would not like to interfere with the said orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Both the Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) 6