-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2174 OF 2010 Namdeo Pandurang Patil ... Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. D.V. Sutar for the petitioner. Mr. A.B.Vagyani, AGP, for the State. Mr. G.N. Salunke, instructed by Mr. J.S. Suryavanshi, for respondent No.4. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: APRIL 12, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 12th March, 2010 by which certain objections raised by the petitioner regarding voters list are partly allowed and partly rejected by the Society. 2. The petitioner is a member of Respondent no.4 Co­operative Society. For the purpose of holding election, a provisional voters list was published by the Society and objections were invited against such voters list. The petitioner raised various objections such as inclusion of certain names in borrowers category as well as non­borrowers category. By the impugned order, -2- the petitioner was communicated the decision by the Election Officer by which some of his objections were accepted and some were rejected against the said provisional voters list. The petitioner has approached this Court against the said decision. 3. It is not in dispute that the election programme is already announced. A copy of the said programme is at Exhibit­A to the petition. The date on which the objections were to be filed and the date of elections are also mentioned in the said list. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that at the time of publishing election programme, the date of filing objection to the provisional voters list is also mentioned and it was not open for the respondents to ask the Election Officer to decide objections to the voters list as the objections were required to be considered by the society itself. The learned counsel further submitted that some names were included in the borrowers category list after the cut off date. In a given case, if a person has obtained loan after the cut off date, his name could not be included in the borrowers category. It is submitted that 103 members were included in the non­borrower category which was wrongly done and without any objection their category was changed from borrower to non­borrower category. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent society by filing affidavit in reply. Learned counsel for respondent No.4­ Society pointed out that the -3- Election Officer has not decided the objections as the same had been decided by the society itself. The Election Officer merely invited the objections and the same were forwarded to the society and the society thereafter decided the objections and communication was given only by the Election Officer. A resolution in this behalf is annexed to the affidavit in reply of respondent No.4, which is at page 46. As per the same, objections have been decided by the society,though it may be communicated by the Election Officer. In view of that it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the petitioner in any manner. 5. Regarding the grievance of the petitioner about inclusion of some voters in the borrowers category, learned counsel for the Society submits that as per Rule 3 of the Election Rules, a non­borrower is defined as one who has not taken loan after the last election but before the present election. The said Rules are at Exh. 5 to the reply filed by the Society. Considering the fact that objections were decided by the society and mere communication was given to the petitioner by the Election Officer as well as considering the submissions of the society that as per Rule 3 a person who has taken loan after last election and before the present election, such person is eligible to be included in the borrowers category, it cannot be said that respondent No.4 has acted illegally. Since the election programme is already notified and considering the nature of the controversy, it would be just and proper to direct the petitioner to file an election petition after the election is over as it is not in dispute that such dispute -4- can be raised by way of election petition under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Co­operative Court. The petitioner can lead appropriate evidence in such petition and this Court would not like to intercept the election procedure when the election programme is already notified. Considering the said aspect, since the election programme is already announced, the petitioner can challenge the election on all available grounds including the grounds raised in this petition by way of appropriate proceedings before the Co­operative Court. We may clarify that our observations made herein may be treated as tentative in nature and the same may not be taken into account in case the petitioner chooses to file election petition under Section 91 of the Act and the Tribunal will be required to decide the same as per the evidence which may be led by the parties before it. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the Election Officer has not taken part in any manner in the matter of deciding any objections and, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in any manner. Even otherwise, disputed questions are involved in the petition and therefore it would be just and proper that the petitioner may approach the Co­ operative Court after the elections are over wherein he can lead appropriate evidence and this is not a matter which we would like to exercise our jurisdiction at this stage when the election programme is already notified. -5- 7. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is rejected. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.G. KETKAR, J.