- 1 - rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4440 OF 2010 Valmik Chiman Bhavar . Petitioner vs S.P.Nere & ors ..Respondents Mr.Balkrishna Joshi for Petitioner Mr.Sabrad for Respondent nos.1 & 2 Mr.V.S.Gokhale AGP for Respondent nos. 3 & 6 CORAM: D.D.SINHA & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ RESERVED ON: 26th July, 2010 DECLARED ON: 18th August,2010 JUDGMENT (Per Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the result of the elections of the managing committee of Balapur Vividh Karyakari Seva Society Ltd,Balapur Taluka Yeola District Nasik respondent no. 2 which was declared on 20.5.2010. The petitioner is a member of the respondent-society and was a candidate contesting election of the managing committee of - 2 - respondent no.2 which took place on 20.5.2010. The Respondent no. 4 was also a candidate for the said election. Petitioner and respondent no. 4 were the only two candidates contesting the said elections from the economically weaker category and both got equal votes; thus there was a tie. The Returning Officer respondent no. 1 declared the respondent no.4 as elected candidate by adopting approved procedure of drawing chits. It is the contention of the petitioner that a name of one Damu Ramji Shirsath who died on 7.9.2003 was shown at serial No.5 in the voter s list and Damu s son Pandharinath Damu Shirsath respondent no.5 whose name was appearing at serial No. 52 in the voter s list was allowed to vote twice i.e. in his personal capacity and also at serial no.5 in the capacity of the legal heir of deceased Damu Ramji Shirsath. It is therefore, contended that the petitioner has lost election by only one vote and hence the election is to be declared as illegal and void. - 3 - 3. The Asst.Registrar Cooperative Societies, Yeola District Nasik respondent No.3, has filed reply dated 22.7.2010 and in the said reply the respondent no.3 has admitted in para 2 that respondent No.5 Pandharinath Damu Shirsath was allowed to vote twice inadvertently in his individual capacity and as a legal heir of late Damu Ramji Shirsath. The respondent no.3 has denied that it was deliberate act on the part of the respondents and has contended that the provisional list of the voters was published on 20.11.2009 and final list was published on 15.12.2009 and on both the occasions, the petitioner did not raise any objection to the said list till the date of the election. 4. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 5 has voted twice and this act is illegal and is admitted by the respondent no.3 in his affidavit. The petitioner has lost this election by one vote and if the respondent no. 5 would not have been allowed to vote twice, the - 4 - petitioner would have secured one more vote and would have been elected in the election. Therefore, the election is to be declared as void and bad-in-law. 5. The learned A.G.P. has objected to the maintainability of the petition and has submitted that the petitioner should approach the Co-operative Court at Nasik as the relief is available under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 6. In view of the above set of facts especially equal votes received by the petitioner and respondent no. 4 and the admitted fact of double voting by the respondent no. 5 the legality of the election needs to be considered. An alternate remedy of redressal of the dispute is available under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. to the petitioner. - 5 - 7. In view of section 91 of the said Act, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should take recourse of the said remedy before the Co- operative Court, Nasik. The petitioner is allowed to withdraw this petition and he may approach the Co-operative Court, at Nasik and his objections are kept open and be decided in accordance with law. D.D.SINHA,J MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR,J - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 -