(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11687 OF 2010 Narayan s/o. Apparao Deshmukh, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ujani, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Cooperation and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The District Deputy Registrar, Latur, Dist. : Latur. 3. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur. 4. Shri P.N. Pawar, Election Officer, Ujani Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Ujani, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Taluka : Ausa, Dist. : Latur. (2) 6. Shri Narayan s/o. Laxman Lokhande, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Agriculture and Social Worker, R/o. Ujani, Taluka : Ausa, Dist. : Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.M. Maney, Advocate, for respondent no.6. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.6, invites attention to earlier orders dated 7-1-2011 passed by me, on Civil Application No. 35/2011. He states that most probably the directions, not to declare results, (3) could not reach the respondent no.4 / Election Officer and hence he again declared the result. In that result, however, respondent no.6 is declared elected. He reiterates that as per result declared earlier, respondent no.6 was found elected unopposed. According to him, therefore, the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 2. Mr. D.R. Korde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4, supports the arguments of respondent no.6. 3. Mr. A.B. Kale, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that had the orders been communicated in time, the result would not have been declared. He states that some important questions are raised in the petition and hence petition may be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to raise those questions in appropriate election petition. The request is not being opposed by the other side. 4. In this situation, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of, as such, with liberty to file Election Petition. Needless to mention, that all contentions raised by the parties are kept open for adjudication therein and, therefore, the Cooperative Court while deciding the controversy, shall not be (4) influenced by any observations made either by this Court or any other authority. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11687