WP/476/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 476 OF 2011 1. Uttamrao Dhondiba Shinde Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Belora, Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna. 2. Pandurang Ramrao Kolhe, Age 45 years, Occ. & R/o as above. 3.Dropatabai Tukaram Shinde Age 60 years, Occ. Household R/o as above. 4.Daulat Dhondiba Kolhe Age 60 years, Occ. & R/o as above. 5.Dnyaneshwar Kautikrao Shinde Age 45 years, Occ. & R/o as above. 6. Kalyanrao Bhivsan Kolhe Age 50 years, Occ. & R/o as above. 7.Bhagwan Shamrao Shinde Age 27 years, Occ. & R/o as above. 8.Ganesh Mahadu Shinde Age 45 years, Occ. & R/o as above. 9.Dnyaneshwar Sahebrao Shinde Age 38 years, Occ. & R/o as above. 10. Uttam Shamrao Kolhe Age 40 years, Occ. & R/o as above. ..Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary for Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2.The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. WP/476/2011 2 3.Shri D.B.Bawaskar Returning Officer for the election of Belora Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. at Belora, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna ..Respondents ... Shri N.D.Sonawane Advocate h/f Shri V.D.Hon, Advocate for the petitioners Shri S.K.Kadam, AGP for respondents 1 and 2 and Shri N.D.Kale, for respondent No.3. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. Dated : January 24, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Naresh H.Patil, J. ) :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Petitioners undertake to deposit the deficit court fees by tomorrow. Undertaking accepted. 3. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. Returning Officer is present in the Court with record. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the pro- forma of nomination papers is available in the market. To ensure sanctity during the elections, the Returning Officer puts a seal of the society on it, WP/476/2011 3 initials the same and after putting the serial number hands over the nomination paper to a person who deposits the required fees. 6. The petitioners allege that though they had approached the Returning Officer with nomination papers, which were issued to them, the Returning Officer refused to accept the same. The explanation which is now given by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, is that the nomination papers which were submitted by the petitioners were not the same which were handed over by the Returning Officer to them. These are the disputed questions of facts. 7. The petitioners have admittedly not filed any appeal as according to them the Returning Officer did not pass any order rejecting the nomination papers. 8. In the facts of the case, we observe that the petitioners are entitled to file an appeal if they so desire. If the petitioners file an appeal before respondent No.2 Assistant Registrar, then we direct respondent No.2 to consider the appeal on merits treating it to have been filed against the implied rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioners. Appropriate decision be taken in accordance with law and on its own merits by 31st January 2011. 9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue raised by the petitioners in respect of acceptance or WP/476/2011 4 rejection of the nomination papers. 10. In the result, Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 11. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalna is directed to consider the allegations made in the petition and after due deliberations issue appropriate instructions to all the Cooperative Societies in respect of a procedure to be adopted in holding the elections so as to curb any such allegations in future elections. 12. Registry to make available authentic copy of this order to the requesting parties. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) (NARESH H.PATIL, J.) ... akl