1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1169 OF 2010 Siddharth V Kamble : Petitioner. Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Konakan Division, Mumai & ors. : Respondents. Mr. D V Bhosale for the Petitioner. Mr. S U Kamdar, Sr. Counsel i/by Mr. S A Pawar for Respondent No.5. Mr. R J Mane AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J Vacation Court DATED : 14th May 2010 P.C. : 1 The above Petition take exception to the order dated 6th May 2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division by which order rejection of the nomination of the Petitioner by the Returning Officer, has been confirmed. The Petitioner sought to contest the election to the Managing Committee of Respondent No.4- Bank. The Petitioner claims to be a member of Managing Committee of one Redson Co-operative Credit Society Limited and the said Redson Co-operative Society is one of the members as per the voters’ list published for election to the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.4- Bank is concerned. 2 On the date of the scrutiny, the Petitioner did not remain present, neither did he file the certificate issued by the said Redson 2 Co-operative Society on which he now lays much store. The nomination of the Petitioner, therefore, was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner has not substantiated his case of being a Managing Committee Member of the said Redson Co-operative Society. The Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. In the said appeal, the Petitioner for the first time produced the certificate issued by the said Redson Co-operative Society which was hand written and in which it has been mentioned that the Petitioner is a Managing Committee Member of the said Society. However, since the Petitioner desired to contest the election of the Respondent No.4, in his capacity as Managing Committee Member of the said Redson Co-operative Society, the Petitioner ought to have substantiated the said certificate by producing other relevant documents like share certificate, “H” form and bond. The said H form and bond are to be executed after the election to the Managing Committee of a particular society and are to be submitted to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. Even before the Commissioner, the Petitioner did not venture to produce the said documents. The Petitioner has produced the share certificate today in this Court for the first time. However, the said “H” form and Bond have not been produced, in the absence of the said documents it cannot be said that the Petitioner has in fact substantiated his case that he is the Managing Committee Member of the said Redson Co- operative Society though he might be a member of the said society 3 Reliance sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8th May 2006 in Writ Petition No.3183 of 2006 is mis-placed. In 3 the said case, resignation letter, which was relevant, was in fact produced, but was not considered by the Returning Officer. It is in the said fact situation, this Court had intervened and allowed the Petitioner in the said writ petition to contest the said election. The said judgment has, therefore, no application in the facts of the present case where the basic documents have not been produced by the Petitioner. 4 In that view of the matter, the order passed by both the Returning Officer as well as the Divisional Commissioner cannot be faulted with. No case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)