1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5160 OF 2010 (Vilasrao W. Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) with WRIT PETITION NO. 5203 OF 2010 (Shri Nana Nimbaji Kokre vs. Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 26, 2010. Both petitions challenge the rejection of nomination paper on the ground that society which they represent in elections of a Federal Specified Society is defaulter. Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that no objection was taken to nomination paper and even in scrutiny no material was produced and the petitioner was not given any opportunity about his society being in arrears or being a defaulter. The source from which Returning Officer got knowledge of alleged default is not spelt out and in the appellate order, the appellate authority has also mentioned the quantum of amount. According to him, all this shows some involvement of unwarranted elements and factors which militate with the aspect of transparency. Attention has been invited to language of Section 73EA of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and it has been compared with Section 73FF of the Act to urge that 2 Section 73EA of the Act does not contemplate any disqualification for being “elected” as a Director of a specified Cooperative Society. Shri Samarth, learned counsel states that he has filed application for intervention and according to him, reading of Section 73-EA of the Act, in the manner in which it is construed by the petitioner is not correct. He has further urged that status of society being represented by the petitioner as defaulter is not in dispute at all. He has pointed out that said society or then Specified Cooperative Society of which elections are being held are not joined as party respondents. Shri Fulzele, learned AGP has relied upon the provisions of Section 23 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971, to urge that Election Officer can conduct enquiries suo motu and according to him as per instructions received, such enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was given an opportunity. He states that the petitioner has not produced anything before this Court to show that his society is not a defaulter society. The provisions of Section 73EA of the Act deal with disqualification being a director of District Central Cooperative Bank or State Cooperative Bank. The disqualification envisaged is from being “appointed, nominated, co-opted or, for being a director” of a District Central Co-operative Bank or of the State Co-operative Bank. The words in Section 73FF of the Act contemplate a disqualification and while reproducing these words 3 used in Section 73EA of the Act, in addition, also use the word “elected”. The scheme of both provisions is very clear and mere omission of word “elected” in Section 73- EA of the Act is not sufficient to conclude that a person disqualified under clauses (i) to (iii) of Section 73EA of the Act can be elected as a director of District Central Co-operative Bank or State Co-operative Bank. The fact that society being represented by the petitioner is in default has not been specifically disputed before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has no information about it as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. The insistence, therefore, is upon alleged violation of principles of natural justice. The Returning Officer as also appellate authority have specifically recorded a finding about such default and quantum of amount in default has also been mentioned by the appellate authority. The petitioner has not approached this Court with contention that these findings on fact reached by the authorities are perverse. The half hearted stand is source of knowledge is not disclosed by Returning Officer or by the appellate authority and that appropriate reasons are not recorded by the Returning Officer while rejecting nomination paper. The Returning Officer has recorded that society of the petitioner is defaulter and, therefore, as per provisions of Section 73EA(ii) of the Act, nomination paper cannot be accepted. I am, therefore, not in a position to accept that there is any non application of 4 mind or appropriate reasons are not recorded. I find that no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition No. 5160 of 2010 is rejected. No order as to costs. In Writ Petition No. 5203 of 2010, service is yet to be effected on the respondents. However, Shri Kilor, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that facts are more or less identical with facts in Writ Petition No. 5160 of 2010. His arguments on law are also identical. Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 has contended that issue is covered by order passed above in Writ Petition No. 5160 of 2010. For the reasons recorded in Writ Petition No. 5160 of 2010, present Writ Petition No. 5203 of 2010 is also rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.