1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1585 OF 2010 Sampat Sadashiv Jagtap .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam for the Petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Mohan P. Pawar for Respondent No.4. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 8th March, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority under Section 152 (A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 allowing nomination of respondent No.4 to be included for the forthcoming election of Kapad Bazar Kamgar Sahakari Seva Society Maryadit. Respondent No.4 was shown to be a defaulter of Sahyadri Sahakari Bank Ltd. The nomination of respondent No.4 was not allowed by the Returning Officer 2 Mr. C. L. Barge. Respondent No.4 filed an Appeal. In the Appeal he showed that the amount payable to the Sahyadri Sahakari Bank Ltd. was paid of. Hence, he was no longer a defaulter. 3. It is shown by the petitioner that the amount of the society in which the respondent No.4 was shown to be a defaulter should have been paid of on the date of scrutiny of the papers. It could not have been paid later than that day to claim that he was not a defaulter as held in the case of Ravi Amrutrao Bagde Vs. Commissioner & others (2006 (3) Bom. C. R. 359. 4. Respondent No.4 however claims that he was not a defaulter because he was not a defaulter of Kapad Bazar Kamgar Sahakari Seva Society Maryadit. He was a defaulter of Sahyadri Sahakari Bank Ltd. Under Section 73 (f) of the Act disqualification for membership of committee would be incurred if the person filing the nomination is a defaulter of any society and not only of the society in which the election is to be held. Consequently it cannot be stated 3 that the respondent No.4 was not a defaulter and was not disqualified on the date of the scrutiny of the nomination papers. 5. Consequently, the impugned order exceeds jurisdiction and requires to be interfered with. The impugned order is set aside. Affidavit-in-reply of respondent No.4 is taken on record. 6. Writ petition is allowed and rule is made absolute accordingly. (R. S. DALVI, J.)