(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 263 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2011 Hussain Dadabhai Shaikh, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Near Karkhana Lift, Jamgaon, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The District Deputy Registrar, Aurangabad, and The District Election Officer, Jamgaon Village Multipurpose Cooperative Society, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. 2. The Secretary, Jamgaon Village Multipurpose Cooperative Society, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. 3. Laxman s/o. Mhasuji Sangle, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Behind Marotu Mandir, Jamgaon, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 263 OF 2011 Annasaheb s/o. Ramkisan Thombre, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kaygaon Road, Jamgaon, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The District Deputy Registrar, Aurangabad, and The District Election Officer, Jamgaon Village Multipurpose Cooperative Society, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. 2. The Secretary, Jamgaon Village Multipurpose Cooperative Society, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. 3. Laxman s/o. Mhasuji Sangle, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Behind Marotu Mandir, Jamgaon, Taluka : Gangapur, District : Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (3) Mr. C.R. Thorat, Advocate, for petitioners in both petitions. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1 in both petitions. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1. 2. The contention in both Writ Petitions is that the respondent no.3 is not a member of respondent no.2 / Society and, therefore, inclusion of his name in voters' list is unwarranted. The objection raised by the petitioners, in this respect, has not been validly decided. 3. Attention has been invited by Mr. C.R. Thorat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, to the requirement of Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, to urge that a procedure has to be adopted while enrolling a (4) person as a member. He has then invited attention to Rule 56D to point out obligation cast upon respondent no.1 to decide objection in this respect. 4. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, on the other hand, has pointed out findings by respondent no.1 wherein it has been noticed that the records of Society reveal the adjustment made towards share capital and also loan borrowed by the respondent no.3. The contention is, this material finding recorded by the respondent no.1 cannot be treated to be either arbitrary or perverse. 5. The effort of Shri Thorat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, to demonstrate before this Court, absence of application by respondent no.3 for enrolling him as member and passing of resolution by the Managing Committee of Society, enrolling him as member, is erroneous, inasmuch as, the respondent no.3 has not only contributed to the share capital but also availed loan from Society. He has also invited attention to the fact that the records for the relevant year in question i.e. 1991 are only stated to be missing. 6. It is apparent that the Election Officer, who is appointed for conducting election, cannot look into validity or (5) otherwise of the enrollment of respondent no.3 as a member. His name appears in "I" register and, therefore, it has been taken in the voters' list. 7. Rule 56D of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, mentioned above, contemplate an objection about omissions or errors in respect of name, address or other particulars in the list. The jurisdiction to decide whether person has been validly enrolled member or not, lies elsewhere and the respondent no.1 is not clothed with that jurisdiction. 8. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. With liberty to the petitioners, to raise their grievance before proper forum, after election is over, present petitions are disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp262etc