1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4043/2011 (HARSHAWARDHAN RAMDAS PIPRE VERSUS ASSTT. REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.K. Tambde, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction to set aside the election program dated 04.08.2011 for holding elections to the respondent no.3- Society. The petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for the reason that the election program was declared on 04.08.2011 and the petition is filed on 17.08.2011, after some of the steps in accordance with the election program have been concluded. The nomination forms have been submitted by the members on 18.08.2011 and the time for raising the objections to the nominations has also expired as the time to raise the objection was only from 11.00 a.m. To 02.00 p.m. on 20.08.2011. At this juncture, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Election Officer should have included the names of certain persons as members, cannot be entertained. So also, at this belated stage, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the election ought to 2 have been held in the Office of the society itself so as to cause less inconvenience to the members, cannot be accepted as no Rule has been pointed out to show that it is mandatory for the Election Officer to hold the election in the Office of the society. The other submission made on behalf of the petitioner that though the Election Officer was appointed in the month of October-2010, the Election Officer has illegally published the election program belatedly on 04.08.2011 is also ill-founded. Nothing is pointed out from the Act or the Rules to show that it is mandatory for the Election Officer to declare the election program within a specified time from the date of his appointment. It appears that the present petition has been filed by the president of the respondent no.3-society with a view to delay the elections, which are scheduled to be held on 24.09.2011. Since the petition is devoid of merit, same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the points raised in this petition are kept open. JUDGE APTE