1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2118 OF 2010 (Sanjimani Danya Prakriya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Udasa & Ors. vs. District Dy. Registrar of Coop. Societies & Anr.) 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. MAY 06, 2010. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Adgokar, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Shri Chitnavis, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Contention is, the name of the petitioners have been deleted from the provisional voters list without any opportunity to them. Shri Patil, learned counsel states that copy of objection was not supplied to the petitioners and observations in impugned order show that the President of petitioner No. 1 accepted that he was not doing any business, is perverse. The President was insisting for copy of objection and without supplying copy of objection, the order has been passed. According to him, the order is not in accordance with the scheme of A.P.M.C. Act and also in breach of principles of natural justice. He relies upon annexures with the petition to show that petitioner No. 1 is still doing the business. Shri Chitnavis, learned counsel, on the other 2 hand, states that if petitioner No. 1 is doing business, the various documents like license issued by A.P.M.C., payment of market fee and supervision charges, Purchase bills for various commodities and audited accounts could have been filed by petitioner No.1 to show that he is working. The learned AGP for respondent No.1 states that he has no instructions on the facts of the case but according to him, the documents on record do not show that petitioner No. 1 is carrying on any business. The question whether petitioner No. 1 appeared through its President before Respondent No.1 and whether he demanded copies of objections or he admitted the allegations in the objection as filed is a disputed question which cannot be gone into by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Similarly, there is no documentary evidence like audited balance sheet or license contemporaneously issued by A.P.M.C. to show that petitioner No. 1 – Society after its registration in 2007 has done the business in market yard regularly. In this situation, I am not inclined to consider the contention of Shri Patil, learned counsel in present writ petition. With liberty to the petitioners to raise the grievance in appropriate jurisdiction, present writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.