1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5013 OF 2010 Manohar Bhiku Patil -: VERSUS :- Hon'ble Collector and Returning Officer and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 28, 2010. Heard Shri S.K.Tambde, learned Counsel for petitioner, Ms. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Shri A.A. Kathane, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. None for respondent no.5. Petitioner seeks inclusion of his name in voters list as representative of respondent no.5- Society on the basis of resolution of the Managing Committee dated 12.09.2010. Name of respondent no.3 already appears as representative of that society. According to petitioner that name appears on the strength of so called general body meeting conducted on 13.08.2010 illegally by the Secretary. It is pointed out that since April, 2010 respondent no.5- Society was under 2 Administrator and new body has taken over on 12.09.2010. The Managing Committee meeting was conducted thereafter and has selected the petitioner as its representative. He further submits that, after the petitioner moved application for substitution in prescribed proforma, he was not given any opportunity of hearing by respondent no.1. Ms. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. as also Shri Kathane, learned Counsel for respective respondents have pointed out that thee was no challenge to the general body meeting conducted on 13.08.2010 at any point of time before any of the respondents. Only by placing reliance upon the resolution of the Managing Committee petitioner has sought deletion of name of respondent no.3 and substitution of his own name. She has also invited attention to the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 to urge that request of petitioner has been rejected on 26.09.2010. In reply, Shri Tambde, learned Counsel states that till date petitioner has not been communicated any such order and he has never been given any opportunity before rejecting that objection. It is apparent that name of respondent no.3 has been included in the voters list because of resolution of so called general body dated 13.08.2010. Petitioner has not assailed that proceedings any where and only on the basis of 3 the managing Committee resolution passed on 12.09.2010, substitution was sought. Neither petitioner nor respondent no.3 are candidates contesting the election. The poling is now scheduled on 13.11.2010. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. With liberty to raise appropriate challenge before appropriate forum, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Needless to mention that all the contentions raised by the parties before this Court are kept open for consideration of appropriate forum. JUDGE Rgd.