1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1023 of 2008 (Sukharam Timaji Katore & ors. Vs. Asstt. Registrar & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.K. Tambde, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. Anoop Parihar, A.G.P. for R-1. Mr. P.K. Waghmare & Mr. V.N. Gaoli, Advs. For R-3. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 15 th December, 2008 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the declaration of the results of the election held on 7/11/2007 and the official notification dated 15/11/2007 issued by the respondent no.1 declaring the results of the election dated 7/11/2007. It is the case of the petitioner that election to the Managing Committee of the Society was held on 26/9/2007 and the petitioners were duly elected in that election. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent no.1 did not have any 2 jurisdiction to cancel the election held on 26/9/2007. For deciding the issues involved in this writ petition, it is necessary to consider certain facts which are seriously disputed by the parties. It is further brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader by relying on Annexure-R- II to the submissions filed by the respondent no.1 that many of the petitioners had themselves written to the respondent no.1 asking him to hold fresh election as the election process was not completed on 26/9/2007 after the same was started in the meeting dated 26/9/2007. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this document is not true and correct and the said document is forcibly obtained from some of the petitioners. This Court cannot enter into this controversy and since the facts are seriously disputed, it is necessary for the petitioners to avail an alternate remedy under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the interim order passed by this Court during the pendency of this petition may be continued till the dispute is decided by the Cooperative Court. The learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. The Cooperative Court has, under the provisions of Section 95(4) of the Cooperative Societies Act, powers to pass interlocutory orders. The petitioners would be at liberty to move the Cooperative Court for interim orders in the matter. It is, however, necessary to continue the interim order passed by this Court, for a period of one month from today, so that the petitioners can approach the Cooperative Court in the meanwhile. Hamdast granted. JUDGE RMP