1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1815 OF 2010. Dinkarrao J. Jayale and others -: versus :- Akot Tq. Co.op. Shetki Sale Purchase Society and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 30, 2010. Heard Shri L.A. Mohta, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri A.P. Tathod, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 to 5. Order of Collector dated 03.04.2010 passed under the provisions of Rule 6[2] of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 1971 has been challenged in present matter by the petitioners. Order is in their favour, but contention is, in view of the conclusions drawn by the Collector, the names of other members deleted similarly ought to have been directed to be taken on list of voters. Shri Mohta, learned counsel contends that Rule 6[1] comes into operation and hence the Collector had no option but to pass that order. The option given to individuals to submit their applications for said purpose, 2 according to him is unnecessary. Shri Tathod, learned counsel points out that during the pendency of all the challenges, election program is already commenced and poling is scheduled on 11.07.2010. Because of the opportunity given by the Collector other persons have come forward with application and after verification, their names have been added to voters list. His contention is, that in such circumstances no interference is warranted in such matters. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 5 adopts the arguments of Shri Tathod, learned counsel, and states that as the elections have already begun, this Court should not interfere in the matter at this juncture. I find that the Collector has found that justice was not done to the parties before him and in that view of the matter considered the objections raised by the petitioner and other 8 persons. As he was exercising powers under Rule 6 of the Elections Rules, he has allowed the applications as filed before him. The other persons had not objected and therefore, he gave them opportunity to file such applications. Though Shri Mohta, learned counsel has pointed out that statement of Shri Tathod, learned counsel about inclusion of names of others subsequently is not on record, I do not find anything wrong in recording his oral statement. The interested and willing persons who have seen the election program could have approached the Society and respondent no.2 with their grievances and they could have also approached other Forum in the matter for ventilation of their grievances, if any. 3 Considering the fact that the elections have already progressed further, I, am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be furnished to learned counsel for the parties to act upon. JUDGE Rgd.