1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.152 OF 2010 Sanjay Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Assistant Registrar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Shriniwas S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the Petitioners Mrs.Neha Bhide B-Panel for Respondent No.1 Mr.P.D.Dalvi, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 8TH JANUARY 2010 P.C. 1.Rule. As all the parties have appeared. Advocates of all the parties are heard at the admission stage itself. 2.The Petitioners claim to be the members of Respondent No.2 Society. The election programme of Respondent No. 2 Society has been fixed as per the Schedule Exhibit-A. 3.The Respondent No.2 Society is stated to consist of 502 members. 132 members in 2 sets consisting of 44 members and 87/88 members were sought to be removed from the 2 voters list. On the last date of the objections to be received these two sets of members filed their objections. The objections are addressed to the Chairman/Secretary. They are sought to be directed to the Society. The Election Officer of the Society has accepted the objection on behalf of the Society on 25th November 2009. It is stated by Mr. Dalvi on behalf of the Respondent No.2 Society that the objections of the Petitioners are not received by the Secretary of the Society. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the Election Officer received it on behalf of the Secretary. These are disputed facts. Both the sets of objectors have made objections in time. The Election Officer did not heed either of the objections. Both the sets of objectors filed their applications before the Registrar. The Registrar granted the application of 87/88 members, but did not pass any order with regard to the Petitioners who are the 44 members of the Society. The Petitioners claim that their objection is still pending before the Election Officer/Respondent No.1. They filed the reminder before the Registrar on 17th December 2009. The Respondent No.1 passed his order on 24th December 2009 that the application dated 17th December 2009 cannot be considered because the voters list has been filed since 26 th November 2009. This does not take into account the initial objections of the Petitioners. 3 4.Mr. Dalvi on behalf of the Respondent No.2 Society drew my attention to the rules of the Society showing that objections have to be filed before the Secretary of the Society. He states that they are filed before the Election Officer instead, on purpose and for ulterior motive to get into the Society. He contends that his instructions are that the Petitioners are not members of the Society at all and seek to come into the Society by virtue of the Petition. 5.Since the very membership of the Petitioners is disputed, the Petitioners would have to show their membership to claim any rights in the Society. It is seen that the election process has commenced from 11th November 2009 and would culminate on 10th January 2010. The objections of the Petitioners cannot be considered at this late stage. The Petitioners will be entitled to challenge the election itself as per law. 6.Consequently the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)