WP(C) 2490/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order since both the writ petitions are based on identical facts. Heard Mr. A. Sharif , learned counsel for the writ pet itioners in WP(C) No. 2470 of 2008 and Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the wr it petitioner in WP(C) No. 2490 of 2008. Also heard learned Govt Advocate. Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the Second Writ Petition are also represented by Mr. A. Sharif and these respondents i.e Respondent Nos. 6,7 and 8 are also the petitioners in the first case. WP(C) No. 2470 of 2008 has been filed challenging the elect ion of Managing Committee of Gagalmari S.S. Ltd, whereas the Second Writ Petitio n has been filed by the newly elected Chairman of the aforesaid society so as to direct the State respondents to approve the resolutions constituting the newly elected Managing Committee. The case of the writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 2470 of 2008 is that the election has been held on the basis of incorrect and defective vo ters list, inasmuch as, good number of dead persons have been included in the vo ters list . On the otherhand, the case of the returned candidates in WP(C) No.2 490 of 2008 is that although the election was held under the supervision of a Go vt. nominee , the approval of the resolution has been withheld by the Governmen t under the influence of a sitting Minister. Although the Minister was specifi cally named and impleaded in the writ petition, but he has chosen not to contes t to the case. The first writ petition was filed and moved on 16.6.2008. While issuing notices upon the respondents, this Court by a speaking order declined to pass any interim order to stay the implementation of the AGM resolutions take n on 27.5.08 , whereby a new Managing Committee was constituted. From the pleadings of both sides, it appears to me that immediat ely before election the society was being run by one Senior Inspector on ad-hoc basis. In other words, the election was held while the society was under the con trol of a Government nominee. Besides this, the election was held under the supe rvision of a Returning Officer, who also happened to be Senior Inspector of Co- operative Societies. This apart, the writ petition No. 2470 of 2008 was filed by as many as 5 persons. Strangely , petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 had also conteste d the same election for the post of President and Vice-President. Subsequently, the names of those petitioners , i.e. ,respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the 2nd Writ Petition had been deleted from the writ petition vide order dated 1.8.2008 pass ed in M.C. No.1945 of 2008. In the private respondents i.e 6, 7 and 8 in the 2nd Writ Petition are the members of the Society who had taken part in the elec tion by casting their votes. In this way it appears to me that the election of the Managing Committee is being challenged by the persons whose names figured in the voters list and also by the persons who had contested the election. In othe r words, no person has come forward to challenge the election on the ground that his name was not included in the voters list. After the election was over, few persons submitted an appeal to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies alleging malpractices on the ground th at votes were cast in the names of dead persons. To ascertain the aforesaid all egations, an enquiry was held by an Inspector of the Societies , wherein it has been observed that there were certain irregularities in preparation of the vote rs list. However, the Enquiry Officer has not given any exact figure as to how m any bogues votes were included in the voters list, nor is there any finding that the number of bogues votes exceeded the difference of votes polled between returned candidates and defeated candidates. Be that as it may, the alleged an omaly in the voters list cannot be said to be a malpractice at the instance of the elected members. It also appears from the documents annexed to the writ pet itions and the affidavits that before holding the election notices were duly is sued inviting objections regarding preparation of voters list etc. Hence, I do n ot find any justifiable ground to withhold the approval of the Managing Commit tee. For the foregoing reasons , the WP(C) No. 2470 of 2008 stands dismissed, whereas WP(C) No. 2490 of 2008 stands allowed. The State respondents are directed to accord approval of the Man aging Committee without any further delay.