(1) WP. 5507.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5507 OF 2010 Mallinath S/o Tamanappa Jatte .. Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5523 OF 2010 Mallinath S/o Tamanappa Jatte .. Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for the respondent-State None present for respondent nos. 4 and 5 though served ... CORAM : VR. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 28TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Both the Petitions are being decided together at peremptory stage in view of urgency and having regard to the short question involved therein. 2] The election program of respondent no.5 Society was declared on 25.5.2010. The petitioner filed objection before the Returning Officer alleging that the respondent no.4 in both the Petitions were (2) WP. 5507.2010 ineligible to file their nominations. He contended that the said respondents were having more than 3 children and one of the child was borne after 1.5.2001. According to him, respondent no.4 in each of the Petition became disqualified to contest the election. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination form of the respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 in each of the Petition filed separate appeals under section 152(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The learned Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lohara, allowed the appeals. By those orders, the respondent no.4 in each of the Petition was allowed to contest the election of the Lohara Vividh Karyakari Sevak Society Ltd. (Respondent no.5). 3] Though served, with the notices, respondents 4 and 5 remained absent. The learned AGP appears for the respondents 1 to 3. 4] Heard learned counsel and learned AGP. 5] It appears from the record that the Returning Officer accepted proof which was furnished by the petitioner insofar as birth of the 4th child, after the stipulated date i.e. 1.5.2001 is concerned. 6] Perusal of the impugned order rendered by the respondent no.2 would show that there is no (3) WP. 5507.2010 independent application of mind to the fact situation. The respondent no.2 simply allowed the respondent no.4 to contest the election. There is no discussion about the evidence tendered by the parties in respect of birth of the 4th child. The impugned order shows that learned Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies failed to ascribe valid reasons for allowing of the appeal and unnecessarily interferred with the judgment of the Returning Officer. No substantial reason is ascribed to accept the nomination forms of the respondent no.4. In fact, the respondent no.2 was required to focus his attention on the issue as regards the period of birth of the 4th child. The impugned order practically misses “Why part” and only declares the respondent no.4 as eligible for contesting the elections. In my opinion, the impugned order is not reflective of judicial exercise. Even quasi judicial authority must act judicially though the proceedings before the quasi-judicial authority have no serious trappings of a trial like in civil or criminal case. 7] Taking overall view of the matter, the impugned order is unsustainable. Hence the Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is restored to its original position with direction that the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, shall hear the parties and decide the objection raised by the petitioner on (4) WP. 5507.2010 merits thereof. The petitioner shall be added as a party to the appeal proceedings. The petitioner shall not however seek adjournments and the appeal before the Assistant Collector be expedited for final disposal and be disposed of within a period of 1 week as far as possible. Learned AGP to communicate this order to the Assistant Registrar i.e. respondent no.2. 8] Both Petitions disposed of. 9] Parties may act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp