ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 8352 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 8352 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 8352 OF 2008 Santosh Ishwara Kharade ...Petitioner Vs. Shri Alabad V.K.S. (Vikas) Sewa Sanstha Maryadit, Alabad & ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Rajesh S.Datar for the Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th February, 2009. : 11th February, 2009. : 11th February, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18/12/2008 whereby his objections to the Voters’ list as contemplated under Rule 56-D of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, (for short, the said Rules") has been rejected. 2. Without observing anything further on the merits of the matter, it is clear that along with the objection, no details were provided before the Registrar- the concerned authority. The Petitioner averred that he tried to supply the details but the authorities refused to take the same and instructed orally to produce those materials at the time of hearing and on the date of ( 2 ) hearing, he did not take the same on record as the same was not produced along with the objections. 3. As per Rule 56-D, which contemplates principally that that the objection to be raised in the voters’ list as published for the ensuing election. If material is available, the concerned authorities has no choice but to decide the same and pass appropriate order restricting the lists within the purview of bye-laws and the Laws. But, those materials if not provided with the objections, there is no option but to pass order of rejection, as done in the present case. 4. The objection dated 08/12/2008 itself shows that it was vague and the details as required had not been provided at that time. This fact is also not in dispute specifically when the Petitioner himself wanted to provide those materials at the later stage, but before hearing as contended above. The hearing was fixed on 18/12/2008. The election process has been already commenced. The Respondent authority need to decide the objections summarily. The authorities, therefore, decided the objections on the basis of material available. The contention, therefore, that he tried to supply the material but the authorities had refused to ( 3 ) take this on record on the date of hearing, just cannot be gone into at this stage and as it is not acceptable and not supported by any documents. The order passed by the authorities based upon the power so vested, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be perverse. 5. There is no doubt that the voters’ list must be in accordance with law. At present unless decided on the basis of alleged objection, with the material, these voters lists cannot be said to be not in accordance with law. 6. In these backgrounds, the reliance placed on the Judgement of this Court in Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate & Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate & Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate & Ors. Ors. Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 543, Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 543, Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 543, with reference to the Section 26 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which according to the Petitioner covers his case at this stage itself, as the authorities considered the objections of substantial in nature. The authorities bound to consider the objection if they are substantial in nature, provided it is raised with material. Mere filing of the objection is not sufficient. The opportunity was available to the Petitioner to file documents on the record. Admittedly, ( 4 ) on the date of filing of Application/ objection there was no such material provided. Therefore, the authorities while passing the order based upon the application placed on record, considered the merit of those objections and pass the order within the purview of Rule 56-D. Therefore, this Judgment in no way assists the Petitioner. 7. However, I am inclined to grant opportunity to the Petitioner to raise such application along with material, if so instructed. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, further contended that he got the certified copy of the voters’ list now to substantiate his case. However, this aspect cannot be gone into once the order is passed based upon the material, then available. This also shows that objections were vague and without material. 9. Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. Stay, as granted earlier, is vacated. No costs. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]