(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2396 OF 2011 Tukaram Haribhau Nalage, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Sangavi Dumala, Taluka : Shrigonda, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Cooperation, Marketing and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. District Deputy Registrar/ District Election Officer, Cooperative Societies, Ahmednagar. 3. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Shrigonda, Taluka : Shrigonda, District : Ahmednagar. 4. Bhairavnath Sangavi Dumala Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Sangavi Dumala, Taluka : Shrigonda, District : Ahmednagar, Through its Secretary. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioner contends that 39 persons not having any lands have been given right to vote and this became clear on 11-3-2011 when the voters' list was published after its finalization. Adv. Mr. P.S. Dighe, for the petitioner, points out that list ought to have been published on 25-2-2011 to enable petitioner to raise objection and that was deliberately not done. According to him, thus, out of total 109 voters in non-borrowers category, 39 are not eligible to vote. Similarly, grievance is being made in relation to 20 voters in borrowers category. (3) Reliance is being placed on various judgments to urge that this number is sufficient to materially affect the outcome of election. 3. Adv. Mr. V.D. Hon, for respondent no.4, and learned AGP Mrs. V.A. Shinde, for respondent nos.1 to 3, have supported the impugned order. According to them, voters' list has been published on due date as per election programme and at this stage, persons who are validly enrolled as members cannot be denied right to vote. 4. Respondent no.4 has not filed any reply affidavit before this court showing the date on which the provisional list of voters was published by it. The affidavit is filed by respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 has stated that he had published that list on notice board of his office on 25-2-2011. He has also annexed a communication dated 25-2-2011 sent to him by respondent no.4 about such publication on 25-2-2011. A disputed question arises and the same cannot be looked into by this court in writ jurisdiction. 5. Not only this, the material on record does not show that names of these 39 persons or 20 persons were appearing as members for the first time in voters' list on 11-3-2011. Thus, if grievance of the petitioner is to be accepted, it becomes clear that (4) persons who are validly enrolled as members are required to deny right to vote and indirectly it is to be held that their enrollment itself is not in accordance with law. 6. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. 7. With liberty to the petitioner to take such steps as are open to him in law, present petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2396