IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6072 OF 2011 RAOSAHEB KAUTIK PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Shri Salunke V.D. AGP for Respondent(s): Shri Suryavanshi K.M. Advocate for Respondent(s) 5 : Shri Patil V.B. Advocate for Intervenor : Shri Hon V.D. h/f Shri Jadhav V.B. ... CORAM : D B BHOSALE & S B DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: August 12, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The questions and issues raised in this petition are also raised in Writ Petition No.5262 of 2011. That petition is coming up for hearing on 17.8.2011. On 1.8.2011 in that petition, we made the following observations :- " (5) Having regard to the admitted facts, in our opinion, the Returning Officer cannot conduct the elections as per the model bye-law Nos. 9(3), 9(5), 9(6) and 9(7). In the circumstances, we direct the Returning Officer to hold the elections as per the bye-laws, which were in existence and/or in force, on the date of declaration of the election programme, i.e. 1.7.2011. (6) It is made clear that the result of the elections would be subject to the further orders that will be passed in the writ petition, on the next date." Further on 4.8.2011, in the same petition, we made the following observations :- akl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD (2) WRIT PETITION NO. 6072 OF 2011 " We would not like to examine the controversy raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage. We have already passed interim order directing the Returning officer to hold elections as per the bye-laws in existence and / or in force on the date of declaration of the election programme. However, having regard to the nature of controversy, we further direct the Returning Officer not to declare the election results till the next date. The elections are scheduled to be held on 14th of August, 2011. Hence, S.O. to 17th August, 2011. All contentions of both the sides will be considered and an appropriate order will be passed on the next date." 3. It is against this backdrop the petitioner in the present petition has challenged the corrigendum issued by respondent 6 on 4.8.2011, thereby restricting the voting right to the non-borrower members to the reserved category candidates, which is in conflict with Sections 73-B and 73-BBB of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ("the said Act" hereinafter). 4. Since the Writ Petition No.5262 of 2011 is kept on 17.8.2011, learned counsel for the parties have agreed for the following order :- (A) Non-borrower members of respondent 5 - Society shall also be allowed to vote for electing members of the managing committee falling in the categories contemplated under Sections 73-B and 73-BBB of the said Act, in the election to be held on 14.8.2011. (B) It is needless to mention that the Returning Officer shall provide separate ballot boxes to non-borrower members. (C) Returning Officer, however, shall not declare the result, as observed in the order dated 4.8.2011 in Writ Petition No.5262 of 2011. akl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD (3) WRIT PETITION NO. 6072 OF 2011 (D) This petition be heard along with Writ Petition No.5262 of 2011 on 17.8.2011. 5. The Returning Officer is present in the Court. Learned AGP to explain him the order, which he shall implement in its letter and spirit. 6. Registry to make available authentic copy of this order to the requesting party, on following the usual procedure. ( S B DESHMUKH, J. ) ( D B BHOSALE, J. ) ... akl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11463 OF 2010 MANOHAR ANANDRAO PATIL VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Choudhary S.S. ... CORAM : D B BHOSALE & S B DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: August 12, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Issue notice to respondents returnable in four weeks. 3. In addition to Court's notice, the petitioner to serve respondents by Advocate's notice, either personally or by Courier/ Speed Post/ Fax, and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. ( S B DESHMUKH, J. ) ( D B BHOSALE, J. ) ... akl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2761 OF 2011 PRAKASH RATIRAM PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Nagarkar Kiran M. AGP for Respondent(s): Smt. Gondhalekar A.V. ... CORAM : D B BHOSALE & S B DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: August 12, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this Writ Petition and seeks liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, where, according to the petitioner, enquiry against respondent 9 is pending. 2. The petition is disposed of as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner as prayed. If the petitioner makes any application for expeditious hearing of enquiry, pending before respondent 5, if any, the concerned authority may consider the application sympathetically. ( S B DESHMUKH, J. ) ( D B BHOSALE, J. ) ... akl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5767 OF 2011 ORCHID CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR ... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Ghuge Ravindra V. AGP for Respondent(s): Shri Godbharale V.D. Sr.Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri Mandlik P.V. i/b Adv. Shri Gandhi Amol Advocate for Mathadi Union : Shri Wagh Pravin ... CORAM : D B BHOSALE & S B DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: August 12, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the summons issued on 11.5.2011 and 13.6.2011 under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Act, 1969 ("the said Act" hereinafter). Shri Ghuge, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in response to these summons, the petitioners have submitted their replies on 24.5.2011 and 20.6.2011 and have also raised an issue of jurisdiction, making reference to Sections 5 and 14 of the said Act. 3. Shri Mandlik, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent 2 submits that till today, the concerned authority has not passed order and he says that they will pass the order within a period of six weeks from today. His statement is accepted. 4. In view of the statement made by Shri Mandlik, in our opinion, this petition needs not be entertained at this stage. We hope and trust that the concerned authority shall pass appropriate order after taking the petitioner's replies into consideration within the stipulated time and shall communicate their order to the petitioner immediately thereafter. akl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD (2) WRIT PETITION NO. 5767 OF 2011 5. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. All contentions of the parties are kept open. If the order passed by respondent 2 is adverse to the petitioner, it is open to them to adopt an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. ( S B DESHMUKH, J. ) ( D B BHOSALE, J. ) ... akl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7038 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7152 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1208 OF 2011 Ashok Ramdas Thakare VERSUS The State of Mahrashtra And Ors ... Shri Sawant Amol S. , Advocate for Applicant Shri K.M. Suryavanshi AGP for Respondents 1 & 3 Shri R.P.Phatke, Advocate for Respondent 2 Shri S.B.Talekar h/f Shri P.D. Bachate Advocate for original Petitioner ... CORAM : D B BHOSALE & S B DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: August 12, 2011 ... PER COURT :- In view of the dismissal of the writ petition today, nothing survives in the civil applications and they are disposed of as such. ( S B DESHMUKH, J. ) ( D B BHOSALE, J. ) ... akl