1 wp-4775-11.doc LRS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 4775 of 2011. Ashok Vishnu Mudgal & others .. Petitioners. Vs. Shri Bhairavnath Sahakari Dudh Vyasavik Saunstha Maryadit & others .. Respondents. _______ Mr S.R. Ganbavle, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr Amit Borkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 1st August, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respective respondents. 2. In the instant case, the following facts are not in dispute:­ That election programme of the election of the Managing 2 wp-4775-11.doc Committee of Respondent No.5 was published on 2.6.2011. Provisional voters list was published on 3.6.2011 and objections, if any, were to be submitted on or before 17.6.2011. The election of the Managing Committee of Respondent No.5 is scheduled to take place on 3.8.2011. 3. The Counsel for Respondent No.3 has contended that the issue involved, whether the preparation, finalization and declaration of voters list of the Society can be treated to be the part and parcel of the election programme, is no more res integra and is covered by the decision of the Full Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court, based on the decision of the Apex Court, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the instant case, the election programme of Managing Committee was published by respondent No.5 on 2.6.2011. Provisional voters list was published on 3.6.2011 and objections were invited on or before 17.6.2011. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the decision of this Court reported in Shamrao Vithal Co­ operative Bank Ltd and Anr v. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat and another Mh.L.J (1993), 1, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 wp-4775-11.doc 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners were declared to be the members of respondent No.5 – Society vide order dated 19th May, 2011 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co­operative Societies and, therefore, notice dated 14th June, 2011 issued by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioners once again were called upon to submit proof of their membership, is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that when the final voters list was published on 18th June, 2011, the names of the petitioners were not included. It is submitted that it is in these facts and circumstances, direction be issued to the Society to include the names of the petitioners in the voters lists. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the stand taken by respondent No.3 and submitted that the issue involved in the present petition stands covered by the law declared by the decision of this Court in the case of Shamrao Vithal Co­operative Bank Ltd and anr v. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat and another Mh.LJ (1993) 1. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. 6. We have perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari 4 wp-4775-11.doc Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2002 (1) Mh.L.J. 659 as well as decision of this Court in the case of Prataprao Rangrao Patil in writ petition No. 3393 of 2003. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos. 2 and 6 of the judgment observed thus :­ (2) “In our opinion, however, as held by the Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardhan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr vs. State of Maharashtra and ors [ (2001) 8 SCC 509] preparation of voters list must be held to be part of election process”. If it is so, no interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage”. (6) “In our opinion, however, the prayer cannot be granted. Once preparation of voters list is held to be part and parcel of election process which has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. No such direction can be issued. Hence, the prayer is rejected”. 5 wp-4775-11.doc 7. The law declared by the Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court clearly demonstrate that once the voters list, provisional or otherwise, is declared, it becomes integral part of the election process, and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the process of election. The counsel for the petitioners did not point out any other judgment taking view other than the one taken by the Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardhan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr vs. State of Maharashtra and ors (2001 ) 8 SCC 509 or the decision of this Court in the case of Prataprao Rangrao Patil (cited supra). 8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the final voters list was declared on 18th June, 2011 and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, referred to herein above, petition is not maintainable. Same is dismissed. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)