1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6489 OF 2009 Shri Shivshambho V.K.S. (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Mydt., & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. Shri Ashok H. Wagare & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.B.Borkar, adv. For the Petitioners. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 2nd February , 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 Petitioners and the respondents were members of the co- operative society and the elections for the Managing Committee were to be held. Respondent Nos.1 to 114 were declared to be not qualified to vote in the said elections and, therefore, their names were deleted from voters’ list. 112 members had filed the Writ Petition No.2847 of 2008 challenging the deletion of their names from the voters’ list. As election programme was already declared, by the order dated 24th April, 2008, this Court refused to interfere in the elections and observed that after the elections, same could be challenged by converting pending dispute into 2 the election petition. Elections were held and the present petitioners were elected. Thereafter, the dispute before the Co-operative Court was amended and converted in the election petition. On the preliminary issue as to whether disputants, i.e., respondent nos.1 to 114 were not defaulters, Co-operative Court heard the parties and declared that they were not defaulters of the society. That finding was challenged by the present petitioners in Appeal No.56 of 2009 before the Co-operative Appellate Court. Appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the burden of proving that the respondents were defaulters or were disqualified was wrongly put on the present petitioners and on this ground itself, the finding of the Co-operative Court is liable to be set aside. I am unable to accept this contention. Every member of the society would be normally entitled to vote unless he is a defaulter or disqualified, therefore, it was necessary for the society or the authority holding the election to establish that those respondents were defaulters and therefore, disqualified to vote. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners had produced the audit report of 2006-07 to show that the present respondents were disqualified. That audit report was not 3 relied by the Co-operative Court on the ground that as per the said report, 556 members out of total 607 members were defaulters. If that report would have been accepted, all the 556 members would be disqualified but that was not done but 114 members were disqualified. It means audit report itself could not be sufficient to establish that these respondents were infact defaulters and, therefore, disqualified. Society or the present petitioners had not called any officer from the society to prove that on the date of preparation of the voters’ list, these respondents were infact defaulters. Therefore, no fault could be found with the findings of the Co-operative Court. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out margin of votes with which present petitioners were elected. If the difference would be more than 114 votes, it could be said that even if all these 114 members voted against them, still the petitioners would be elected but no such material is before the Court. 6 Taking into consideration the circumstances and the concurrent findings of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere in 4 the finding that the respondent nos.1 to 114 were not defaulters and thus not disqualified to vote. Therefore, petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)