1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5512 OF 2008 1. Munjaji s/o Dhondji Ingole, Age : 64 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Kurunda, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli 2. Balaji s/o Rukhmaji Chepurwar, Age : 60 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Basmath, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Cooperation Department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Regional Dy. Director of Sugar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded 3. The Collector, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli 4. Tokai Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kurunda, Through its Chairman, Shankarrao Sambhajirao Kharte, R/o Basmath, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli 5. Ashok s/o Devrao Karhale, Age : 38 yrs., Occu.Agril., 2 R/o Girgaon, Tq. Basmat, District Hingoli 6. Janardhan s/o Namdeorao Karhale, Age : 38 yrs. Occ.Agril., R/o Girgaon, Tq. Basmat, District Hingoli ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.K. Chavan, Advocate holding for Mr V.D. Salunke for the petitioners; Mr N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondents no.1 to 3; Mr E.P. Sawant, Advocate for respondent no.4; Mr S.B. Ghatol, Advocate for respondents no.5 & 6 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners by this petition seek the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12.3.2008 passed by respondent no.1 extending the term of the provisional Committee of respondent no.4 factory with retrospective effect since last two years. The petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents no.1 to 3 to appoint an Administrator in the respondent no.4 factory as the provisional Committee, in law, cannot continue for more than five years. The petitioners 3 have also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.1 to 3 to initiate the process of holding the elections of respondent no.4 sugar factory. 3. We have heard learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners; learned A.G.P. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3 and Shri E.P. Sawant, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent no.4 and Shri Ghatol Patil, learned Counsel on behalf of respondents no.5 & 6 intervenors. 4. Unfortunately the elections of the respondent no. 4 sugar factory had not been held despite the period of the provisional committee coming to an end. Contrary to all provisions of law an extension is granted to the Committee, as a result the Committee is continued for more than eight years, whereas the Committee in law could hold office only for a period of five years. Be that as it may, as the affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent no.3 discloses the readiness of the respondents in holding the elections of the respondent no.4 factory, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition insofar as prayer clauses (B) and (C) are concerned. The respondent no.3 in its affidavit in reply has stated that since the provisional voters list is submitted to the office of the respondent no.3 by the respondent no.4 factory and the expenses of conducting the elections are deposited, the steps would be taken to complete the elections within a period of six months. This affidavit was sworn on 30th September, 2008. 4 5. We are informed that the respondent no.4 factory has submitted the provisional voters list sometime in June, 2009. We, therefore, direct the respondents to calculate the amount of the election expenses and submit a demand within two weeks from today. On receipt of the demand from the respondents, the respondent no.4 factory shall deposit the said amount within two weeks thereof. The respondents are further directed that upon receipt of the election expenses from the respondent no.4 factory, all steps be taken for initiating the election and the election be concluded within five months thereof. We have made it very clear to the respondents that no request for any extension of the aforesaid period would be brooked by us. 6. This petition, therefore, succeeds to the limited extent as observed above. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. 7. Copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court be provided to the parties to act upon. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 5