1 wp652.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 652 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 653 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 654 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 655 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 656 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 657 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 659 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 660 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 661 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 663 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 664 OF 2011 Himmat Yeshwant Patil and another ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr.A.S. Sawant, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. V.H. Dighe and Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4 Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent no.5 ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 4th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Amol Sawant for petitioner in all matters, Advocate Mr. P.B. Patil for respondent nos. 3 and 4, Advocate Mr. 2 wp652.11 R.N. Dhorde for respondent no.5 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. The contention of Advocate Mr. Sawant for petitioner is, after accepting the certificate that the respective respondent no.5 is defaulter, their nomination paper was rightly rejected by the Returning Officer on 11.01.2011. He states that for the first time in appeal filed under Section 152 A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 challenging that rejection, several contentions requiring investigation into some facts were raised and the petitioners placed relevant material before the Appellate Court to show that those contentions were misconceived. He has invited attention to the provisions of bye-laws of Society, particularly bye- law no.60, to show that service of notice by pasting upon residential house is also valid. He then invites attention to the stand taken on affidavit to show that such notice was duly published by displaying it in the office of Gram Panchayat. A panchanama recorded on 05.12.2010 in support thereof is also pressed into service. The insistence upon individual notice is stated to be misconceived and support is being taken from the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported at "1996(3) Bom. C.R. 201" ( Ashok Ambadasrao Lawand and another V/s The State of Maharashtra and others). The learned counsel also states that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority or then the reasons pressed into service by filing affidavit before this Court are not relevant at this stage and the Returning Officer or then the Appellate Court can not look into all those aspects. His contention is, the election process is started and only question was, whether respective respondent no.5 did not pay for the services enjoyed by them. 3 wp652.11 3. Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Advocate Mr. Dhorde for respondent no.5 are supporting the impugned orders. According to them, bye-law No. 60 does not support a service of notice by displaying it on notice board of Gram Panchayat. They further state that even panchanama allegedly drawn on 05.12.2010 is not acceptable to respondent no.5. The Judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of "Ashok Ambadasrao Lawand and another V/s The State of Maharashtra and others (Supra)" is stated to be not laying down correct position in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported at "1987(3) Bom. C.R. 550" ( Murlidar Bhaulal Malu V/s Sudhakar Honaji Patil and another). 4. After hearing the respective Counsel, I find that the respondent no.5 is disputing receipt of any services from the respondent no.4 Society. He therefore alleged that he is not required to pay anything to society and hence is not defaulter. In any case, the provisions of bye-law no.60 on which the reliance has been placed, contemplates a personal service upon the respondent no.5. That notice addressed to him can be pasted on his residence in case of any avoidance. Public notice on which the petitioners are placing reliance before this Court is dated 05.12.2010 and according to them, it was displayed on notice board of Gram Panchayat. It has got some endorsement again in handwriting. At the bottom it has signature and endorsements are comparatively in small font because of a space constraint. Signature and remark on right side even if accepted, at the most shows that the Secretary had gone to the residence of respective respondent no.5 and informed them about the pasting of notice in 4 wp652.11 the Gram Panchayat Office. 5. The contention of other side is, notice of demand has to be addressed to individual and contain details in relation to amount outstanding against him. 6. In this situation, I find that several disputed questions of facts arise which can not be answered by this Court in the present jurisdiction. The law laid down in "Ashok Ambadasrao Lawand and another V/s The State of Maharashtra and others(Supra)" may not remain a good law in view of the " Murlidar Bhaulal Malu V/s Sudhakar Honaji Patil and another (Supra). 7. Hence without observing anything more on merits, I find it proper that the petitioners should approach Competent Forum after the entire election is over, where the disputed questions can be resolved and law can be appropriately applied. With this liberty to the petitioners, the Petitions are disposed of. However, in view of the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp652.11