1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3636 OF 2009 Nanasaheb s/o Manikrao Patil, Age 45 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Bholegaon, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad 3. Trimbak Raibhan Madge, Age 45 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Pachod Ekod, Taluka and Dist.Aurangabad .. Respondents Shri J.J.Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondents 1 and 2 Shri M.S.Karad, Advocate holding for Shri S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 7th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. We have learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Karad on behalf of respondent No.3. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an injunction restraining respondent No.3 to act as a Member of Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Aurangabad. Since the respondent No.3 is an elected representation and the election of respondent No.3 is subject matter of Election Petition, according to us the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for at Prayer Clause (B). Vide Prayer Clause (C) to the petition, the petitioner prayed for issuance of a writ directing the respondent No.2 to decide the Election Petition expeditiously. 4. Shri Dighe, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 states that in the light of the fact that there are several respondents to the Election Petition and as the issues have been framed and the petition is already fixed for evidence of parties, respondent No.2 would decide the said Election Petition as far as possible within twelve months from today. We accept the aforesaid statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and accordingly make Rule absolute on the basis of the said statement. 3 5. The petition, therefore, succeeds only in respect of prayer clause (C) to the petition while it stands dismissed in respect of prayer clause (B) to the petition. Respondent No.2, therefore, to decide the Election Petition as expeditiously as possible and preferably within twelve months from today. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3636.09Awp) 4