SSK/908 1 WP.1356.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1356 OF 2011 Prashant Govindrao Mahale & Anr. ....Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Smita Gaidhani for the petitioners. Mr. A. B. Vagyani, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr Kishor S. Patil for respondent no.3. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard Ms. Gaidhani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Yagyani, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Patil for respondent no.3. 2. The petition pertains to the election to the Managing Committee of the Antarveli Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society Limited, Antarveli, Taluka-Niphad, District -Nashik. Admittedly, the said society is a notified society within the meaning of Section 73(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short “the MCS Act”), and therefore, the elections are required to be taken by the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy SSK/908 2 WP.1356.11 Registrar published the election programme for preparation of the final voters list. This programme is annexed at page 24. The provisional voters list was to be published on 27th December, 2010. The objections were to be notified till 10th January, 2011 and the objections were required to be decided on 19th January, 2011. The petitioner nos. 1 & 2 gave similar objections before the stipulated date to the provisional voters list. The grievance of the petitioners is that more than 100 persons were shown in the provisional voters list in non-borrower category even though they did not hold 10 guntas agricultural land as per the by-laws of the said society. 3. The objections of the petitioners were disposed of by the respondent no.2 after hearing the concerned parties and the same were overruled. The respondent no.2 rejected the objections mainly on the ground that the names of these members cannot removed at this stage, that too, without following the provisions contemplated under Section 35 of the MCS Act and Rules 28 & 29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. These provisions contemplated opportunity of hearing to the concerned members. I do not find any error in the finding of the respondent no.2. 4. Be that as it may, the final voters list is already published, and thereafter, the election programme under Rule 56(J) is also published on SSK/908 3 WP.1356.11 10th February, 2011. The date of acceptance of nominations was 24th February, 2011 to 4th March, 2011. The Scrutiny Committee was scheduled to take place on 5th March, 2011. Voting is scheduled to be held on 3rd April, 2011 and the results are to be declared on the same day after voting is concluded. Thus, election is at advanced stage. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shivaji Marotrao Suryawanshi versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in 2002 (2) Mh.L.J.306. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, in my view, the ratio of the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In any case, the petitioners have alternative remedy of election petition under Section 91 of the MCS Act. Taking totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)