SSK/ 1 caw 1849.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1849 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5569 OF 2006 Shri Siddheshwar Shikshan Mandal, Yalavi & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Shri Vijayrao Babasaheb Patil & Ors. ....Respondents and Shri Anil Vishwasrao Patil ....Applicant and Shri S. Y. Patil, .....Respondent (Proposed) Shri P. K. Dhakephalkar i/b. Pratap Patil for applicant. Shri N. V. Bandiwadekar for petitioners in WP 5569 of 2006 & for applicants in CAW 1877 of 2011. Shri A. Y. Sakhare i/b. Mr. P. S. Patil for respondent no.5. Shri S. D. Patil for respondent no.9. Shri R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent no.3. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The civil application is taken out by one Shri Anil Vishwasrao Patil for intervention in the aforesaid writ petition. A prayer is made to implead Mr. S. Y Patil, Returning Officer for 2011 election, as respondent no.6. The election programme dated 24th August, 2011 is also sought to be stayed or in the alternative to be quashed. So far as the prayer for intervention is concerned, admittedly, the applicant is a member of respondent no.5-Trust, and SSK/ 2 caw 1849.11 therefore, he is interested party within the meaning of the provisions of Section 73 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short “the BPT Act). By impleadment of the applicant, no prejudice will be caused either to the petitioners or the respondents. In that view of the matter, applicant is directed to be impleaded as party respondent in the aforesaid writ petition. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week from today. 3. So far as the prayer for the impleadment of the Returning Officer is concerned, it need not be considered in this application, as same is already considered in another Application No.1877 of 2011 filed by the petitioners in the above writ petition. The other reliefs claimed in civil application, in my view, cannot be granted at this stage. The election programme is at advanced stage. The said programme which is annexed at Exhibit “C” shows that the last date for accepting nomination is already gone. 4. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel, in this regard, relied upon the order dated 24th August, 2006 in the aforesaid writ petition, under which, all the 58 members who have been removed from the membership under Section 41-A of the BPT Act were allowed to participate in the election process. Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel, however, invites my attention to the election SSK/ 3 caw 1849.11 programme at Exhibit “F” page 36 to the petition which is for a period of five years commencing from 2006. The programme shows that when the learned Single Judge passed the order on 24th August, 2006, the 2006 election was at advanced stage and only voting remained. Otherwise also, under the Order dated 24th August, 2006, the result of the election was directed to be declared on the basis of the votes casted by 232 members, and votes of 58 members which were removed under Section 41A of the BPT Act were directed to be kept separate. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to the relief of stay of the election or quashing the election programme. Elections of the Managing Committee of respondent no.5-Trust shall, however, be subject to the final outcome of the above writ petition. With these observations, the civil application is disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)