jpc wp9058-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9058 OF 2011 Ashok Kalshetti ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. Vineet B. Naik a/w Mr. Sarang B. Aradhye for the Petitioner Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 16th November, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The above Petition takes exception to two orders both dated 24th October, 2011 passed by the District Election Officer & District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Solapur. 3. The challenge in the Petition is to the voters list, inasmuch as the Petitioner seeks inclusion of himself and 395 others who are similarly situated as the Petitioner in the final list of voters which has jpc wp9058-11.sxw 2 been published for the ensuing election of the respondent No.4 Society, which is a notified society within the meaning of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for brevities sake, referred to as the 'said Act'). Towards that end, the Petitioner has raised the challenge to the said two orders dated 24th October, 2011. Since both the orders bear the same date, the said orders would have to be referred to by their outword numbers i.e. outword No. 5309 and outword No.5288. By the order No.5309, the objection of the Petitioner to the provisional list of voters to the effect that names of 396 persons have been wrongly not included, has been rejected. By the order No. 5288, the application of the Petitioner for inclusion of his name and other 395 persons has been rejected. 4. The issue of membership of the Petitioner and the persons similarly situated as him has a chequered history. It appears that on 27th May, 2009, an application was made by 501 persons for membership under Section 22 of the said Act. In the light of the inaction on the part of Respondent no.4 Society in deciding the said application, a report was called from the Assistant Registrar concerned to opine about the claim of the said persons who had applied for membership. However, since only 105 persons, out of the said 501 persons, had jpc wp9058-11.sxw 3 approached the said District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the said officer granted deemed membership to the said 105 persons by his order dated 5th August, 2010 and by Clause 3 of the said order, a general direction was issued by the said officer that the persons similarly situated as the said 105 persons should also be granted benefit of deemed membership. Thereafter, the said matter was challenged before the hierarchy of the authorities provided under the said act and ultimately, the Divisional Joint Registrar, whilst maintaining the said order, set aside the general direction that was issued in respect of the persons similarly situated and restricted the deemed membership to only 105 members who were before the District Deputy Registrar. Thereafter, the balance remaining out of the 501 persons i.e. 396 persons which included the present Petitioner again approached the District Deputy Registrar by their application dated 11th May, 2011 on the ground that that they were similarly situated as the 105 persons who were granted deemed membership. Since in the meantime the election programme was announced and since the provisional voters list was then published, the said 396 persons also applied to the Election Officer on the same day that their names should be included in the provisional list of voters . jpc wp9058-11.sxw 4 5. It is required to be noted that the Petitioner had also taken objection to the inclusion about 875 persons in the provisional voters list and the application made by the Petitioner to the District Deputy Registrar for their inclusion and for exclusion of the 875 persons was rejected by the District Deputy Registrar. The said rejection dated 2nd of July 2011 resulted in the Petitioner filing writ Petition no. 5234 of 2011. By order dated 18th July, 2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said Petition by setting aside both the orders as regards inclusion and exclusion and remanded the matter back for a de-novo consideration as regards the objections of the Petitioner. The District Deputy Registrar was directed to decide the issue within a period of four months from 8th July, 2011. 6. In the meantime, since the application for deemed membership of the said 395 persons was not being disposed of by the District Deputy Registrar, the said persons filed a Petition being Writ Petition No. 6331 of 2011 which came up for admission before a Division Bench of this Court and in view of the fact that the said application was pending the Division Bench directed the District Deputy Registrar to dispose of the said application within a period of three weeks by an order dated 13th September, 20011. The District Deputy Registrar was, jpc wp9058-11.sxw 5 therefore, mandated to dispose of the said application by 7th October, 2011. This was on the basis of communication of the said order to him by the Petitioner. In so far as the directions of the Division Bench are concerned, the District Deputy Registrar did not the pass order within the time stipulated by the this Court. However, the order came to be passed on 12th October, 2011. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Naik has sought to demonstrate as to the manner in which the District Deputy Registrar has conducted himself and it is his submission that the said order has been purposely passed on 12th October, 2011 so as to prejudice the Petitioner and the said 395 persons in the matter of their inclusion in the voters list, by frustrating their objection to the provisional voters list. In my view, the conduct of the District Deputy Registrar in not deciding the application/matter within the time frame fixed by this Court and neither asking for extension to pass the order is required to be deprecated in the strongest terms. There is, in my view, substance in the submission of Mr. Naik that the said order has been purposely passed on 12.10.11 so that even if an order was to be passed in favour of the Petitioner and the said 395 persons, they would not get the benefit of the same. Time and again it is noted that the time stipulations jpc wp9058-11.sxw 6 of this Court are not complied with by the officers and without seeking an extension, orders are passed after the time period is over. This sort of conduct on the part of the officers of the State Government or a public body is highly deplorable and the time has come, when proceedings would have to be initiated against such officers for non adherence to the time frame, especially when motives are alleged by the other side and when prima facie the allegations can be said to have substance. In the facts of the present case, I do not propose to dwell further with the said aspect, but hope and expect that the concerned officer takes note of this order and sees that in future, the orders are passed within the time stipulated by any Court of law. 8. In so far as the objection of the Petitioner to the provisional voters list is concerned, the same has also been decided as mentioned herein above by two orders of the same date. By the order No. 5309, dated 24th October, 2011 the objection to the provisional list of voters in so far as the objection of the Petitioner for wrongful exclusion of his name and other 395 persons, has been rejected and by the order No. 5288 of the same day, the objection of the Petitioner for inclusion of the said names has been rejected. It is required to be noted that as per the election programme, the last date for filing of the nomination was jpc wp9058-11.sxw 7 14th of November, 2011 and scrutiny of the said nominations was to be held 15th of November, 2011 and the list of valid nominations was to be published by today i.e.16th November, 2011 by 5 p.m. Thereafter the date for withdrawal of nominations was 1.12.2011 and the voting is to take place on 11th of December, 2011. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Naik vehemently urged that in view of the report of the Assistant Registrar which was submitted to the District Deputy Registrar at that time when the issue of grant of deemed membership to 105 persons was under consideration, the Petitioner and 395 members ought to have been included in the final list of voters. 9. The learned counsel would further contend that the issue of deemed membership, though decided by order dated 12th October, 2011, has not been decided within the time frame stipulated by this Court, and therefore, till such time, as the proceedings before the higher authority against the said order dated 12th October, 2011 are decided, the election programme should not be allowed to move forward and that in the event the said persons are allowed to participate in the election, their votes, if any, should be kept in a separate ballot. In my view the said submission cannot be countenanced as, the issue of deemed membership is the defining aspect, in so far as entitlement of jpc wp9058-11.sxw 8 the Petitioner and 395 persons to participate in the elections is concerned, no doubt, as observed by me herein above, the conduct of the District Deputy Registrar was not above board, however the same cannot be a consideration for allowing the petitioner and other similarly situated to be included in the voters list. The fact of the matter is that the application for deemed membership has been rejected and till such time as the issue achieves a finality, the name of the Petitioner and other 395 persons, in my view, cannot be included in the voters list as what the Petitioner has not been granted directly in an application for deemed membership cannot be granted indirectly by accepting their objection as regards their wrongful exclusion or their inclusion, which can only be on the basis of membership of the said respondent no.4 Society. The election programme having reached the stage that it has, it is not possible to tinker with the same at this stage, having regard to the well settled principles applicable for interdiction in the election process. In that view of the matter no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)