1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3719 OF 2008 Dhanore Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus Manohar Balbhim Deshmukh & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Rajesh Datar & Mr.Pankaj Das for the petitioners. Mr.Bhushan V. Mahadik for respondent No.1. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 12th June, 2008 DATED : 12th June, 2008 DATED : 12th June, 2008 P.C. : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court dated 7-5-2008, wherein the election to the Managing Committee of the Petitioner No.1 - Society allegedly held in the year 2005 has been set aside and the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Madha has been directed to hold fresh elections to the Managing Committee of the Petitioner No.1 - Society. 2. The Respondent No.1 had filed a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 stating that the entire election process and the alleged declaration of results on 2 28-2-2005 was bogus and the same be set aside. By judgment and order dated 10-1-2007, the learned Judge of the Cooperative Court, Solapur dismissed the dispute by holding that the Respondent No.1 failed to prove the allegations made in the dispute. 3. On appeal, the learned Judge of the Cooperative Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 7-5-2008 allowed the appeal and set aside the election allegedly held in the year 2005. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Cooperative Court, on appreciation of the documents adduced on behalf of the petitioners, came to the conclusion that the election process has been conducted in accordance with law and that the Respondent No.1 failed to substantiate the allegations made in the dispute. In the light of the above finding recorded by the Co-operative Court which is at page 34 of the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Cooperative Appellate Court was in error in holding that the elections conducted by the Respondent No.2 - Returning Officer was contrary to law. 3 5. The contention of the petitioner that the Respondent No.2 appointed as an Returning Officer had conducted the elections to the Managing Committee of the Petitioner No.1 - Society in accordance with law, is falsified by the evidence given by the Returning Officer - Respondent No.2 himself. Analysing the evidence of the Respondent No.2, the Lower Appellate Court has recorded thus : "5. ......... In the cross examination, the Respondent No.2 Election Officer has admitted that there are two rival groups in the village, the managing committee did not provide him the election programme. He had no knowledge about the byelaws. He further admitted that as per provisions of byelaws, the strength of the managing committee is of 9 members. However, he has conducted election for 13 seats. he further admitted that he had applied to the Asst. Registrar, C.S. for permission to election programme on 4-2-2005. And on the same date he received the same. He further admitted that on 4-2-2005 at 11.00 a.m. he was present at Madha in the office of Assistant Registrar C.S. and on the very day and same time he published election programme at Dhanore. The distance between Dhanore and Madha is about 30 k.ms. He further admitted that he published provisional voters list and final voters list on the very day i.e. 4-2-2005 and not called any objections on the provisional voters list. He further admitted that voters list was required to be published on 25-1-2005 and the election programme before 2 months." 6. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that except the Respondent No.2 - Returning Officer, none of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 12 had entered the witness box to prove the documents tendered by them relating to the election allegedly held in the year 4 2005. Neither any other employee of the society nor even the person who is supposed to have informed the public about the election by beating the drum have been examined. 7. In these circumstances, finding recorded by the Cooperative Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence of the Respondent No.2 and holding that the documents furnished by the Petitioner are bogus cannot be faulted. 8. In this view of the matter, I see no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.