1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5264 OF 2010. Prabhatai Kisanrao Wankhede -: VERSUS :- The Collector, Amravati 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 : NOVEMBER 25, 2010. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Shri I.W. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 and Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel for respondent no.6. None for respondent no.5 though served. Contention of Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for petitioner is, in pursuance of meeting of respondent no.5 conducted on 11.08.2010, name of petitioner has been included in final voters list for conducting elections of respondent no.4 Bank as representative of respondent no.5 Society. Thereafter, respondent no.3 has illegally 2 conducted some meeting on 12.10.2010 and on the basis of a resolution allegedly passed therein, name of respondent no.6 has been substituted in place of the petitioner. He contends that the conduct of meeting by respondent no.3 is in violation of provisions of Section 76 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, as there is no requisition to hold any special general body meeting, as contemplated by that provision. No such requisition was received by respondent no.5 Society at any point of time. The section permits society time of one month to convene the meeting and default in the same results in serious consequences. Here without waiting for that period of one month, respondent no.3 has immediately convened the meeting on 12.10.2010. He points out that though respondent no.5 did not receive that requisition, by way of abundant precaution it convened the meeting on the basis of the letter dated 13.09.2010 by respondent no.3, but then because of the alleged resolution dated 12.10.2010 and deletion of name of petitioner from final voters list, in pursuance thereof, that meeting was not conducted on 28.10.2010. It is the contention that the election is scheduled on 04.12.2010 and even today name of petitioner can be allowed to be 3 added, as neither the petitioner nor respondent no.6 is contesting the election. Shri De, learned Counsel for respondent no.6 has urged that after the resolution dated 12.10.2010 a Dispute under Section 91 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner before the Cooperative Court and validity of entire action is being considered by that Court. That Court has also rejected the prayer for temporary injunction. The learned Counsel further states that the Secretary of the Society has given in writing to the Assistant Registrar a statement about illegal and unauthorized conduct of alleged meting dated 11.08.2010. He has stated that thee was no meeting conducted on said date and because of that disclosure, the respondent no.3 has rightly convened the meeting on 12.10.2010. Learned A.G.P. has also supported the arguments of Shri De. Perusal of the communication dated 13.09.2010 reveals that both the requisitions mentioned therein are undated. Thus the date from which the period of one month as contemplated by Section 76 [1] of the Act, is to be computed or counted is not clear. The order/letter dated 13.09.2010 written by the Assistant 4 Registrar also does not disclose that date. However, facts show that as per that requisition and communication dated 13.09.2010 a Special General Body Meeting has been held on 12.10.2010 and in it name of respondent no.6 has been approved as representative of respondent no.5 Society for the ensuing election of Respondent no.4 Bank. Contention of Shri Kilor, learned Counsel that dispute before the Cooperative Court does not pertain to meeting dated 12.10.2010 and is only for implementation of resolution dated 11.08.2010, needs to be viewed in this background. The Society / respondent no.5 has itself called meeting on 28.10.2010. It could have looked into its earlier resolution dated 11.08.2010 and also resolution dated 12.10.2010 and could have taken appropriate decision on 28.10.2010. Unfortunately what happened on 28.10.2010 has not been brought on record. Respondent no.5 Society has chosen not to appear before this Court and to either support the petitioner or to oppose the petition. Shri Kilor, learned Counsel at this stage has urged that looking to the provisions of Rule 5[2] of the Election to Specified Cooperative Societies Rules, framed under the Act, a representative can be changed only within 5 7 days of the last date prescribed for nomination, hence the change of representative on 28.10.2010 would have been of no consequence in so far as the present elections are concerned. The change of representative is altogether different thing and respondent no.5 Society could have brought on record the correct position about the resolution dated 11.08.2010 or 12.10.2010 and it could have helped the cause before this Court. I find that several disputed questions therefore arise in the present matter which cannot be looked into in writ jurisdiction. Petition is, therefore, rejected with liberty to petitioner to take further appropriate steps in the matter. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.