1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2982 OF 2010. (Shri Anandrao Gangaram Yeramwar and others -: versus :- The State of Maharashtra and others.) 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. DATED : JULY 06, 2010. Heard Shri R.D. Bhuibar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri Sonare, learned A.G.P. for respondents. Contention is, nomination paper of petitioners has been rejected only because their proposers are in arrears on 08.06.2010 i.e. the date of filing of the nomination paper. The learned Counsel contends that the provisions of Rule 56- R of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 do not contemplate such disqualification. It is further stated that this Court has in some what similar facts found that when the seconder is in arrears, that cannot be a valid ground for rejection of nomination paper. Shri Sonare, learned A.G.P. for respondents has invited attention to the provisions of Rule 56-N [2] of the 2 Rules, read with Section 27[10] of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, to urge that member who is not qualified to vote cannot be a proposer. Shri A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel is seeking time to file appropriate application for intervention. He contends that the objectors before respondent no.3 have not been joined as parties in the present Writ Petition. With the assistance of the respective counsel, I have perused the papers and also provisions of law. It is apparent that in the light of the provisions of Section 27[10] of the Act read with Rule 56-N of the Rules, mere fact that name of person appears in voters list cannot be determinative. The petition does not contain a statement that on 08.06.2010 the proposer was not in arrears. I am, therefore not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction as some disputed questions arise. Liberty to petitioners to raise their grievance before appropriate forum in accordance with law. My attention is also invited to Government Resolution dated 19.06.2009 by which the State Government is claimed to have waived the recovery of loan (Khawati Loan), with contention that proposer of petitioner no.1 is shown to be in arrears of that Khawati Loan. The 3 Government Resolution was not pressed into service either before respondent no.3 or then before the Appellate Authority. In these circumstances, in writ jurisdiction for the first time when election process has already commenced, I am not in a position to rely on the said Government Resolution. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.