1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4581 OF 2009 (Sau. Meera Prakash Meshram & Ors. vs. Returning Officer & Coop. Officer, Grade I & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 22, 2010. Heard Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mujumdar, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 11, Shri Gupte, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6, Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 to 9 and Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No.10. The judgment of Cooperative Appellate Court delivered in Appeal No. 40 of 2007 on 02.07.2009 is in question before this Court. The Cooperative appellate Court has observed that elections to the society should have been from amongst 50 founder members only and the direction issued by Cooperative Court to hold election accordingly, has been upheld. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is after the initial order of Cooperative Court dated 17.05.2007, the election from amongst founder members was already held and that part of the order of Cooperative Court was satisfied. The appellate Court, therefore, could not have issued said direction again 2 while dismissing the appeal on 02.07.2009. The learned AGP and counsel for the respective contesting respondents contend that the grievance about election was not made before the cooperative appellate Court at any stage and hence the said grievance cannot be looked into by this Court to set aside the judgment delivered by cooperative appellate Court. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel has tried to cite certain judgments to urge that after holding of elections as per directions of Cooperative Court dated 17.05.2007, there was no living dispute and hence the appeal itself had become infructuous. It is apparent that the grievance sought to be made by the petitioners is outside the scope of consideration inasmuch as those facts needed to be pointed out to the cooperative appellate Court when appeal was pending before it. The respondents before this Court are disputing holding of elections and they are pointing out that the direction was to society to hold elections and the elections alleged to have been conducted by the petitioners are not the elections held by the society but by some action committee. They have also pointed out that Respondent No. 1 – Returning Officer has issued Election Programme on 14.09.2009 and said Election Programme was not challenged by the petitioners. It is apparent that a disputed question has 3 been raised before this Court for the first time and the contention is to set aside the order of cooperative appellate Court on its basis. The issue, therefore, cannot be looked into by this Court. The petitioners ought to have made this grievance before cooperative appellate Court and in any case they could have approached Respondent No.1 with their grievance that as the elections are already conducted, Election Programme published by him was not legal and necessary. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel has contended that the present petitioners in fact have pressed before the cooperative appellate Court the need to conduct elections from amongst 50 founder members. He is seeking time to point out relevant observations in this respect by cooperative appellate Court. As already observed above, as a disputed question of fact cannot be raised before this Court to assail the judgment delivered by cooperative appellate Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. With liberty to the petitioners to take further appropriate steps as may be advised, the present writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel seeks stay for a period of four weeks to challenge this order. In view of the observations above, said request is rejected. JUDGE *GS.