1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5585/2010 Someshar N. Kale Vs. The Collector, Amravati and others. And Writ Petition No. 5589/2010 Narahari Wamanrao Raut Vs. The Collector Amravati and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 26, 2010. Heard Advocate Kilor for the petitioners, Advocate Deshpande for respondent no.6, Advocate Patil for respondent no.4 and AGP Sonare for respondents 1 to 3. Advocate Kilor contends that as in voters list published as final voters list on 20.9.2010 there was no representative for respondent no.5 society, addition of name of respondent no.6 as such in that list under Rule 5 (2) of Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committees Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred as “the Rules”) is not 2 legal. He states that the provisions of Rule 6 Sub Rules (5) to (7) will also not be attracted because impugned orders contain reference to Rule 6 Sub Rule (2) and reply affidavit of respondent no.1 has attempted to justify it as one under Rule 5 sub Rule (2) of the Rules. He points out that earlier there was resolution of respondent no.5 Society approving petitioner as its representative and subsequent resolution passed by respondent no.5 in favour of respondent no.6 is after publication of final voters list. Advocate Deshpande on the other hand states that Rule 6 sub rules (5) to (7 )specifically envisages situation when name of representative does not figure in voters list at all. Learned AGP also supports the impugned order. The facts show that respondent no.5 society had no representative in final voters list. Respondent no.1 has added the name of respondent no.6 as representative and such inclusion is 3 permitted by Sub Rules (5) to (7) of the Rules. The mention of exercise of powers under Rule 5 Sub Rule (2) is not decisive at this stage as society was going unrepresented and there is resolution in favour of the petitioner and he did seek its execution. I am not inclined to interfere in the writ petition in these circumstances. The petitioners are free to raise grievance before appropriate Forum. The petitions are rejected. No costs. JUDGE ambulkar