1 63 wp.4568.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4568 OF 2011 Narendra Kumari Singh. ... Petitioner Versus Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Ashok B. Dhingreja, Constituted Attorney of the Petitioner appearing in-person. Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.H.Sachamnandani for Respondent No.4 ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15 th July, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the constituted attorney of the Petitioner appearing in- person. 2 The prayers made in this petition read thus: “a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased quash to Order dated 9.11.2010 passed by Respondent No.1; and /or b) Interim and ad-interim relief's in terms of prayer (a) hereinabove; and/or c) Quash the nomination form of Respondent No. 4 as 2 63 wp.4568.11 accepted by the Returning officer as he is not a member of the society; and d) Direct Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 to form the managing committee as per provisions of MCS Act of persons whose nomination forms are valid excluding that of Respondent No.4 whose acceptance of the nomination form is illegal as he is not the member as per law; and/or e) In the interest of justice remand the matter to Respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the whole matter after allowing Petitioner or / and other persons affected to be joined in the matter; and/or” 3 By the order dated 9 th November, 2010, the Divisional Joint Registrar directed that the administrator appointed under Section 77 (A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 shall hold elections of the Managing Committee of the Society. It is not in dispute that the elections of the Managing Committee have been already held. 4 After the elections are held, prayer for quashing the nomination form of Respondent No.4 cannot be granted. It is for the Petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy for challenging the result of the election. Even the prayer clause (d) cannot be granted as the Petitioner has not challenged the result of the election. 3 63 wp.4568.11 5 As far as prayer clause (e) is concerned, the order passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar has worked itself out as election has been already held. The constituted attorney of the Petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of Dalsing s/o. Shamsing Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2006 (4) All MR 580). As the elections have been already held, the said decision will have no application. 6 Hence, there is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. However, the remedy of the Petitioner of challenging the result of the election in accordance with law is expressly kept open. 7 All contentions of the parties as regards the legality and validity of the election are kept open. [ A.S.OKA, J ]