1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2457/2011 [Prabhuji Pandurangji Ghugal and another .vrs. The Collector and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 15, 2011. Heard Advocate Shri H.D. Dangre for the petitioners, Government Pleader Shri N.W. Sambre for respondent nos.1 and 2, Advocate Shri M.V. Samarth for respondent no.3 and Advocate Shri V.S. Dhote for respondent nos.4 and 5. Contention of Advocate Shri Dangre is that the petitioners are the representatives of respondent no. 4 and 5 members societies chosen as such on 29.9.2010 and 29.10.2010 respectively after the death of their original representatives. Respective society communicated this change to respondent no.3 specified society whose elections are now going on and voting is scheduled to be held on 19.6.2011. He points out that the date for nomination as envisaged under Rule 5 sub rule 2 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971, as per 2 election programme and said rule, was 9.5.2011. As the change was communicated to respondent no.3 within time and respondent no.3 communicated the same to respondent no.1, the office of respondent nos.1 and 2 ought to have added the names of these petitioners as representatives of the respondents societies. He invites our attention to document Annexure 7 to urge that in respect of at least three societies such change has been effected on 9.5.2011. He further contends that the refusal of receipt of such communication or change by respondent no.3 or then by respondent no.1 appears to be incorrect. He has invited our attention to annexure A filed by respondent no.3 Bank along with its reply to point out that it discloses receipt of 13 such proposals but then the changes effected on 9.5.2011 in relation to three societies are not reflected therein. Hence, according to him, respondent no.3 and respondent nos.1 and 2 are not making true and correct discloser before this court. He contends that as the representatives of respondent nos.4 and 5 are already dead, the petitioners must be allowed at least to cast vote as representatives for those societies on 19.6.2011. Shri Dhote, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5, states that they have forwarded the resolution communicating the names of 3 the petitioners as their representatives to respondent no.3. However, he fairly states that respondent nos.4 and 5 do not possess any acknowledgment of respondent no.3 in that respect. Shri Samarth, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2 state that no such proposals were received by them. It is, therefore, obvious that the disputed questions of fact arise. Mere disclosure of 13 proposals by respondent no.3 Bank along with its affidavit does not mean that the change, carried out on 9.5.2011 by the office of Collector, is in the absence of such proposal and is contrary to rule 5 (2) of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971. We find that all these facts raise several questions which cannot be looked into by this court. We, therefore, leave the petitioners with liberty to file appropriate petition before the competent forum after the result of the election is declared. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande