wp2335.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2335/2011 Satyanarayan Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Umri -vs- The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector and others WRIT PETITION NO.2336/2011 Gayatri Mahila Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Junona -vs- The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector and others WRIT PETITION NO.2337/2011 Jaidurga Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Itgaon -vs- The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector and others WRIT PETITION NO.2338/2011 Yashoda Mahila Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Mogli -vs- The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector and others WRIT PETITION NO.2339/2011 Jaidurga Mahila Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Pauna -vs- The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector and others WRIT PETITION NO.2340/2011 Gajananbaba Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Palependhari -vs- The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri P. S. Tidke, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Bharati Dangare, learned A.G.P. for R-1&2. Shri A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for R-3. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 09/06/2011 wp2335.11.odt 2/3 The above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 27/04/2011 passed by the Collector, by which the application filed by the petitioners for inclusion of their names in the final voters list for the elections to the respondent No.3 Society , came to be rejected. The petitioners, in support of their inclusion in the voters list, have relied upon various documents, which have been annexed to the petition, which are questioned on behalf of the respondent No.2 Federation as being false and fabricated. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Federation has produced the original record. On perusal of the said original record and on its comparison with the documents annexed to the petition, ex facie, it becomes clear that the said documents do not match. In view of the contentious issue between the parties as regards the said documents produced by the petitioners in support of their case, the same gives rise to serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that the objection of the petitioners in so far as the inclusion of their name in the final voters list was decided by the respondent No.1 Collector, after the publication of the final voters list on 14/03/2011. In my view, that would not further the case of the petitioners in wp2335.11.odt 3/3 any manner, in the context of the fact that there is a serious dispute between the parties in respect of the documents on which the petitioners seek to rely. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open for the petitioners to file such proceedings as permissible in law to question the elections, after they are completed and if such proceedings are filed, needless to say that they would be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the instant order. JUDGE KHUNTE