1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 597 OF 2010. Dadarao Bhaurao Tupkar -: versus :- District Deputy Registrar, Coop. Societies 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 : FEBRUARY 24 , 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Kothari, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri R. Deo, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri Ukey, learned counsel for respondent no.3. The matter was heard in the background of judgment delivered on 15.02.2010 in Writ Petition No. 355/2010. Grievance of petitioner here is, respondent no.3 submitted two nomination papers, one vide Sr. No.119 and other vide Sr. No.65. Nomination paper vide Sr. No. 119 was for contesting the election for reserved category i.e. the constituency of Branch Representatives, while the other was for general constituency. From general constituency 8 Directors are to be elected and from constituency reserved for representative of Branches, 3 Directors are to be elected. 2 To show entitlement to contest election, same voters list and enrollment was pressed into service. Both the forms were accepted and as respondent no.3 is admittedly residing in the area of Branch which is within 25 kms., of the Headquarter of Chikhali Urban Cooperative Bank, he could not have filed any nomination paper for contesting the elections against 3 reserved seats. Support is sought to be taken from the provisions of Bye law no.29[i] for the said purpose. Shri Ukey, learned counsel for respondent no.3 states that the eligibility to contest elections for 3 seats is residence beyond 25 kms and as respondent no.3 is residing beyond 25 kms., his nomination form has been rightly accepted. He contends that any other interpretation of Bye law no.29[i] will not be in accordance with the scheme of the bye law. He further points out that whether respondent no.3 resides within the said area or not, is a disputed question which cannot be gone into by this Court in Writ Petition, and therefore, Election Petition is the only effective remedy. He has relied upon the judgment reported at 2006 [6] Bom.C.R. 303 (Geeta Shrish Chaudhari .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) in support of his contentions. Shri Deo, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has pointed out that at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper no objection was raised by the petitioner and hence the nomination paper has been accepted in accordance with law. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent no.1 adopts the argument of Shri Deo, learned Counsel. Perusal of Bye law no.29[i] clearly shows that from general category normally total 11 Directors are to be elected. Where the Bank has Branch or Branches beyond 25 3 kms., the requirement undergoes change. In that situation, 3 Directors are to be elected “from amongst members residing in the area served by such Branch/Branches”. These wordings in Bye law no.29[i] clearly show that the Branch or Branches must be beyond 25 kms., from the Headquarter. Thus, though Shri Ukey, learned counsel for respondent no.3 states that respondent no.3 is residing beyond 25 kms., it is not sufficient to enable him to contest the elections. On the contrary, the two nomination papers filed by him clearly show the confusion then prevailing in his mind. I, therefore find that no disputed questions of fact arise in the matter and as respondent no.3 has failed to show that he resides in the area of a Branch which is 25 kms. from the Headquarters of Chikhali Urban Cooperative Bank, the nomination paper therefore could not have been accepted. At this stage Shri Ukey, learned counsel for respondent no.3 has pointed out that he has placed on record some documents that his residence is beyond 25 kms., of Chikhali Urban Cooperative Bank. However, as that is not the relevant norm, perusal of those documents is not necessary. With the result, the impugned order dated 16.01.2010 passed by Respondent no.2- Election Officer, is hereby quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.