WP.10225, 10228-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 10225 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION No. 10228 OF 2010 Mr. Balasaheb B. Wagh & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandwad & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Anilkumar Patil i/b S. P. Shinde, for the Petitioners. Mr. V. S. Gokhle, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Kishor Patil, for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 11, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and respondent No.2 and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 3. By these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandwad. A provisional list of voters of Vividh Karyakari WP.10225, 10228-10 - 2 - Cooperative Society was published. In the draft provisional list, according to the petitioners, names of certain persons who are not eligible to be the members, were included as voters. Petitioners, therefore, filed their objections before the Assistant Registrar, as provided under the Rule 56(d) of the Cooperative Societies Rules. The Assistant Registrar, however, partly allowed their application and directed the inclusion of names of some of the members in non- borrowers list and deletion of some names from the provisional voters’ list and objection in respect of some of the voters was not accepted. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in the provisional voters’ list the names of voters who had not taken a loan for a period of five years, prior to election were also included, though under the Rules, the said persons were not entitled to vote; secondly, it is submitted that names of persons who were not resident of said village also were included; and thirdly, it was submitted that the names of minors were included in the said list. He submitted that the learned Assistant Registrar has not taken into consideration the third objection, raised by the petitioners that some of the voters were minors. He invited my attention to the reasoned order. He also submitted that though the Assistant Registrar accepted the position that borrowing WP.10225, 10228-10 - 3 - members who have not taken loan were not entitled to vote, the Assistant Registrar did not delete their names and stated that those names would be shown in the list of non-borrowers. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that the scope of inquiry which is to be held under Section 56(d) is very limited; secondly he submitted that the Assistant Registrar has taken into consideration the objection of the petitioners and in operative part of the order in paragraph 1 and 2 names of certain members were deleted. He submitted that so far as non- borrower members are concerned, there was a resolution passed in the year 2008 in which it was agreed that their names should be shown as the members. It is submitted that this resolution was never challenged by the petitioners. Thirdly, it is submitted that as far as the objection in respect of some of the members are concerned, factually the said objection was incorrect. He also submitted that the election program has already been published and on that ground also this Court can not interfere with the impugned order, passed by the Assistant Registrar. 4. In my view, the powers to be exercised by this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The Assistant Registrar being the quasi-judicial authority, has, after taking into WP.10225, 10228-10 - 4 - consideration the objection raised by the petitioners, partly allowed the application. In my view, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. The Apex Court in the case of - Surya Dev Rai, Appellant vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors, Respondents [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675] has laid down the guidelines as to the circumstances under which High Courts should exercise the writ jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, as under- “12. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction the High Court proceeds on an assumption that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has the jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. The High Court would not, therefore, for the purpose of certiorari assign to itself the role of an Appellate Court and step into re-appreciating or evaluating the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those arrived at by the inferior court. ... 38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:- (1) ... ... WP.10225, 10228-10 - 5 - (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking WP.10225, 10228-10 - 6 - certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.” 5. As far as the grievance of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10228 of 2010 is concerned, in my view, the learned Assistant Registrar has not committed any error of law, apparent on the face of record. Secondly, the petitioner can always file election petition and challenge the election on the grounds which are permitted under the Cooperative Societies Act and the rules framed thereunder. 6. So far as grievance raised in Writ Petition No. 10225 of 2010 is concerned, all objections are over-ruled for the reasons stated hereinabove. In my view, since no case is made out for interference with WP.10225, 10228-10 - 7 - the orders impugned in the petitions, both the writ petitions are dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]