1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4855 OF 2008 Suresh Bhimrao Gaddi (Birajdar) & anr. ......Petitioners versus The District Dt. Registrar Co-op.Societies, Solapur & ors.)........ Respondant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for the Petitioner Mr. C.R. Sonawane AGP for respondents 1 to 3 & 6. Mr. Anil Borkar for Respondent no.4. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 12th SEPTEMBER, 2008. JUDMGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25thSEPTEMBER 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) 1. The present petitioners have challenged the entire election process for electing the Managing Committee Members of Respondent no.4 society. As the term of the earlier elected body was to expire, the society passed a Resolution and appointed the Respondent no.5 as the Returning Officer for conduct of the election. The said name came to be approved by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The grievance in the present petition is that on the date of issuance of the 2 nomination forms the office of the society was closed and the Returning Officer did not issue the nomination forms to the Petitioners and others, who were interested in contesting the election. The respondents, authorities from the Co-operative Department have filed an affidavit in reply stating therein that as the share capital of the Respondent no.4 Society is below Rs. 50 lacs, the society is entitled to appoint a Returning Officer for holding the election, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 4-3-2003. The Assistant Registrar had also appointed an Observer. There are conflicting reports about the office of the Respondent no.4 society being either open or closed at the relevant point of time. The election is already held for 17 posts to be filled in by the elected candidates. 12 persons are declared elected as unopposed whereas five are declared elected in the contest. 2. The question that arises in the present petition is as to whether did the Respondent no.5 issued nomination papers to the candidates, desirous of securing the same or otherwise. As stated herein before, the petition has come up for hearing after the election is over. All disputes that are raised in the present petition are factual disputes, which are difficult to be adjudicated in the Writ Petition. The Petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy available before the Co-operative Court for questioning 3 the legality and validity of the election. The Petitioner has remedy of filing the dispute under section 91. In this view of the matter, we decline to interfere with the election which is already over. It is made clear that it shall be open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. The petition is thus summarily dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.