FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.37/2010 Shri P.R.Patil ,Adv.for petitioner Shri K.B.Choudhari,AGP for State. .... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 04/02/2010. 1] By the present Appeal, the appellants are challenging the legality and validity of order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, declining to entertain the Writ Petition directed against order passed by District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ahmednagar, which permitted inclusion of the names of respondents 6 to 123 as borrower members. The other prayers in the Writ Petition are to the effect that (1) To quash and set aside election programme published by Returning Officer dated 19/1/2010 and for deletion of the names of respondents 6 to 122 from the final voters list. Thus, final list of contesting candidates is published and voting is scheduled to take place on 21/2/2010. In these facts and circumstances, learned Single Judge has observed that it would not be appropriate to entertain this petition when the process of election has reached almost the last stage of election and hence declined to entertain the Writ Petition. 2] The learned Single Judge has obviously relied on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sangha and another V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2001) 8 S.C.C.509, that once the process of election commences, the same should not be halted or obstructed and need to be permitted to reach its logical end in restoring a democratically elected body. 3] In the present case, the main grievance of the petitioner is that there is breach of Rule 56(B) (1) and (2). We are taken through various judgments of this Court, so also later judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V. & P.Sangha Ltd. and Anr. V/s State of Maharashtra and others to contend that if the Court is satisfied about a commission of illegality in preparation of provisional list of voters, the Court can interfere with the process of election. The said judgment of the Supreme Court in Ahmednaqar Zilla Sangha's case was in relation to preparation of the voters list, which was prepared on the basis of non-existent rules and hence the Apex Court had interfered with the process of election. 4] We do not find that this is a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the first place and to interfere with the process of election in the second place. In that view of the matter, the Letters Patent Appeal is summarily dismissed. Authenticated copy be made available to learned counsel for petitioner. 5] In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No.1600/2010 does not survive and the same is dismissed. (N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) umg/lpa37-10