(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10720 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10722 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 10720 OF 2010 Somnath s/o. Rangnath Sakrate & 8 others. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Department of Cooperation and Textile, and 4 others. .. Respondents. ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 10722 OF 2010 Ranjit s/o. Shankarrao Avhad & 7 others. .. Petitioners. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Department of Cooperation and Textile, and 4 others. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.D. Raut, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.T. Ghute, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Mr. V.M. Humbe, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. The petitioners in both the petitions are making grievance in respect of deletion of their names from the final list of voters prepared by the respondent no.4, for the purpose of holding elections to respondent no.3 / Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Tambewadi (Taluka : Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad). 2. It is the contention of the petitioners, that their names (3) appeared in the provisional list of voters. However, those have been erroneously deleted at the time of preparation of final list of voters. 3. An affidavit has been presented on behalf of respondent no.2, wherein it is stated that the deletion of the names of the petitioners is as a result of communication issued by the Secretary of respondent no.3 / Society, to the effect that the petitioners and other persons are not members of the respondent no.3 / Society. 4. On perusal of the programme of election, it transpires that the date prescribed for publication of final list of contesting candidates is 15th December 2010 and the voting is scheduled on 26th December 2010. The programme of election has reached an advanced stage and the only stage that has remained to be completed is casting of votes. Considering the advance stage of process of election, it would not be prudent to cause interference at this stage. The petitioners may avail of the alternate remedy of raising challenge to the process of election, after completion of election process of the respondent no.3 / Society. 5. The preparation of voters' list is an integral part of (4) election process and interference at the stage of preparation of voters' list itself is not appropriate. A useful reference can be made to a decision of this Court, in the case of Mohanrao Anandrao Munde and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2006(6) Mh.L.J. 813), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha, and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 2001 SC 3982), has held that once the election process is set in motion, it is not permissible to cause interference in the ongoing process of election. 6. In this view of the matter, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10720etc