ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6672 OF 2011. Shri Gajanan Shamrao Rathod ....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & ors ...Respondents Mr Suhas S. Inamdar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs P. S. Cardozo, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. Mr Nitin Mulye, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Mr P.S. Dani i/by Sarang Aradhye, Advocate for Respondent No.7. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED :8th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr Inamdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Dani, learned Counsel, for respondent No.7, Mrs Cardozo, A.G.P., for respondent No. 1, 2 & 4 and Mr Mulye, learned counsel for respondent No.5. ladda 2. Writ petition pertains to the election of respondent No.5-A.P.M.C. Solapur. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s objection to inclusion of name of respondent No. 7 in the provisional voters list came to be overruled. 3. Respondent No. 7 is member of respondent No.6 – Society and in the year 2010 respondent No. 7 has been co- opted as the member of the Managing Committee. The petitioner, on the basis of certificate of one Suresh Nilkanth Bableshwar, the Secretary of the respondent No.6, raised an objection that respondent No.7 was never enrolled as member and/or co-opted as Managing Committee Member of respondent No.6. Said certificate is annexed at page 68 of the petition. Mr Dani, learned Counsel, for respondent No. 7, on the contrary, relied upon certificate given by the same Secretary, which is annexed at page 78. The certificate at page No. 78 is contradictory to the certificate at page 68. In certificate at page 78, the Secretary – Suresh Bableshwar has admitted that respondent No.7 is co-opted under resolution No. 2 as a member of Managing Committee of respondent No.6. Mr Dani invited my attention at page 79 which shows that co- option of respondent No.7 as a Member of Managing Committee of Respondent No.6 was approved by the District ladda Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Solapur by his order dated 4.11.2010. 4. That apart, the election process of respondent 5 – A.P.M.C. is at advanced stage. The election programme is declared and date of nomination has already gone and scrutiny is also over, the voting is scheduled to take place on 5th of October, 2011. In these facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when the petitioner has alternative remedy of election petition. Consequently, petition is dismissed. 5. It is made clear that after declaration of the result of the election, if the petitioner files election petition challenging election of respondent No.7, the same shall be decided on its own merit, in accordance with law and without being influenced by the present order. (RANJIT MORE, J.)