IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1615/2011 RAMLAL CHOUDHARY..VS.. THE COLLECTOR, BHANDARA AND OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 18, 2011. Heard Shri Kathane for the petitioner, Shri Dharmadhikari AGP for respondent no.1, Shri M.V. Samarth for respondent no.3 and Shri A.M. Ghare for respondent no.4. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the acceptance of the nomination form of the respondent on.3 for contesting election to the Board of Directors of the respondent no.4 bank / society. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that the petitioner had not raised an objection to the nomination of the respondent no.3, at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers and had orally raised the same after the time for raising the objection had expired and after the nomination form of the respondent no.3 was accepted. It appears that the objection was not in writing and was an oral objection. It is also clear that several disputed questions of facts arise for determination in this writ petition as it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 was an office bearer of the defaulter society and hence, was disqualified from contesting the election in view of the provisions of section 73(E A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and it is the case of the respondent no.3 that the respondent no.3 had resigned as office bearer of the said defaulter society and had thereafter filed his nomination form on 18.3.2011 and 19.3.2011. It would therefore, not be in the interest of justice to entertain this writ petition as disputed questions of facts are involved herein. Even otherwise, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an election petition after the election results are declared. Hence the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Issues raised in this petition are however, kept open. JUDGE SMP