IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3793 OF 2010 Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh .. Petitioner V/s. The Assistant Registrar & Others .. Respondents. Shri S.M.Dharap, for Petitioner. Shri A.B.Vagyani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri G.S.Godbole, for Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.SAVANT & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.J. (VACATION COURT) DATED: 12th MAY, 2010. P.C.: 1. This petition takes exception to the notifications dated 12th April, 2010 and 15th April, 2010 issued by the District Election Officer, inter alia, disclosing the election programme for election to the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.3 Bank. The Petitioner has also prayed that the further process of the election programme should be stopped. 2. In so far as the challenge to the notification is concerned, the said challenge is on the ground that there is non compliance of Rule 52 (L)(2) of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Rules, in as much as the election programme dated 12th April, 2010 issued by the District Election Officer is not published in one or two local news papers as mandated by the said rules. The second ground of challenge is that it does not mention the seats to be filled under section 73 (BB) of the said Act of the workers representatives. 3. The Petitioner is a trade union which claims to be representative union of the workers in the Respondent No.3 bank. As mentioned herein above, the election programme was announced by the District Election Officer by the notification dated 12th April, 2010. The said election programme, inter alia, discloses the seats available for various categories including the reserved seats. The said election programme also discloses the various steps in the election leading to the date of polling and declaration of results. 4. The District Election Officer has published a truncated election programme in two local news papers on 15th April, 2010. The said election programmed published on 15th April, 2010 discloses only certain stages in the said election which can be said to be vital stages of the election. The said election programme published consists of five columns which are column no.2,6,7, 8 and 9 of the election programme published on 12th April, 2010. As mentioned herreinbefore, the vital stages in the election programme leading to the polling and declaration of results is published. Though it is true that the complete election programme in terms of rule 56 (L)(2) was not published, the said truncated programme which has been published, at the foot bears the note that the complete election programe including the seats available for various categories is displayed on the notice board of the Respondent No.3 bank. The challenge of the Petitioner to the non-compliance of the said rule would have to be considered in the context of the Petitioner being a party, not directly affected by the said election programme in as much as the Petitioner is not a party who is desirous of contesting for any of the seats mentioned in the election programme. This is not a petition by a party who says that in the absence of publication he was not aware of the election and therefore though desirous could not contests the same. Therefore, in so far as the challenge to the notification on account of non publication of the election programme in two local news papers are concerned, in our view, considering the stage at which the election programme is at present, this is not a fit case wherein we should interdict with the elections. Another ground on which we would not interdict is on account of the fact that the District Election Officer in fact published the election programme though truncated in two local news papers on 15th April, 2010. The said truncated programmes contained all the vital stages and hence in our view in the facts and circumstances of the present case there was substantial compliance. 5. In so far as the challenge to the said notification on the ground that the seats to be filled up under section 73 (BB) are not mentioned, in our view there is no merit in the said submission. Section 73(BB) mandates that workers representatives be appointed to the Managing Committee of the Society. The said process of appointment contemplates that the recognized union or the representation union has to nominate the said workers representatives. If the recognized union or the representative union does not act in accordance with section 73(BB), the authorities are obliged thereafter to take steps by following the procedure contemplated under the said section to fill up the said seats under section 73(BB). The said seats therefore, can be filled up even after the elections are over. The said section also mentions the number of workers representative who can be on the Managing Committee. Therefore, in our view there is no serious prejudice caused to the Petitioner, on account of non mentioning of the seats to be filled up under section 73(BB) 6. Considering the aforesaid facts in our view this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India. We accordingly dismiss the above Petition. However, though we have dismissed the Petition, we are of the view that it would be better for the authorities if the election programme is published in its entirety as per the requirements of Rule 56(L)(2) rather shown in the truncated form as in the instant case. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (R.M.SAVANT,J.)