1 RPW.82-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.82 OF 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3948 OF 2011 Jamaluddin Mohd. Rafiq and 2 others. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra and 2 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr. S.G. Kudle, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. J.G. Reddy, for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM : J. P. DEVADHAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 14 th DECEMBER, 2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 16th DECEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER : ( PER A.R. JOSHI,J.) 1. By this Petition, the petitioners pray for review of the order dated 8 th July, 2011 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.3948 of 2011 by the Division Bench ( D.D. Sinha & A.R.Joshi, JJ.). 2 RPW.82-11 2. By the said order dated 8 th July, 2011, under review, Civil Writ Petition No.3948 of 2011 was disposed of as infructuous in view of the specific statement made on oath by Respondent No.3 in the said Writ Petition in his affidavit dated 7 th July, 2011. In paragraph Nos.13, 14 & 15 of the said affidavit of Respondent No.3, it was specifically stated that the election of the Society of the Petitioners was already held on 8 th October, 2010 by following due process of law and Managing Committee of new nine members of the society was given charge of the Society by Respondent No.3/Administrator on 16 th October, 2010. In view of the said statement, it was found by the Division Bench that the cause of action involved in the said Writ Petition no more survives. 3. In the Writ Petition it was alleged that Respondent Nos.2 & 3 were not performing their statutory obligation and not holding the election within the period prescribed by law. It was prayed to give directions to Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to hold the elections of the Society of Petitioners. 4. Present Review Petition is filed on two grounds, firstly, that no election was ever held and in the absence of any reply filed by the returning officer, the Administrator/Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition could not have filed an affidavit to the effect that election was actually held; and secondly, even if the election was held the same was 3 RPW.82-11 not in accordance with law. 5. So far as the first objection is concerned, Respondent No.3 had filed his affidavit-in-reply dated 21 st September, 2011, accompanied by copy of written directions given by the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies/SRA, Mumbai. By the said written directions one Shri Chandrakant Pawar, Co-operative Officer (Grade-II) was appointed as Election Officer by the said Authority to conduct the elections. It is specifically mentioned in paragraph Nos.5,6 & 7 that the election process was completed by said Election Officer and new Committee of nine members was constituted and Respondent No.3 / Administrator gave charge of the Society to the said newly appointed Committee. Since the statements made in the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 is based on documents furnished by the returning officer, no fault can be found with the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3. In these circumstances, the first ground raised by the Review Petitioners has no merit. 6. So far as the second objection is concerned as to election programme not in consonance with law, this cannot be a ground for entertaining the present Review Petition and in any event if the Petitioners are aggrieved by the said election process and formation of the Managing Committee of nine members, the proper remedy would 4 RPW.82-11 be to prefer Election Petition challenging the alleged elections and not by way of review of the order dated 8 th July, 2011. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present Application for review and the same is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (J. P. DEVADHAR,J.)