wp2330.11.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2330/2011 Bhagyashri Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha and others -vs- The Hon’ble Collector, Bhandara and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S. K. Tambde, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mrs. Bharati Dangare, learned A.G.P. for R-1&3. Shri A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for R-2. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 09/06/2011 The above petition under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 27th April, 2011 passed by the respondent No.1 Collector by which order the application filed by the petitioners for inclusion of their names in the final voters list for the ensuing election to the respondent No.4 society came to be rejected. The Collector-respondent No.1 has observed that in terms of the report submitted by the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies the name of the petitioners does not appear in the list of the members of the respondent No.4-Federation. The Collector was of the view that in view of the said report, the application filed by the petitioner was required to be wp2330.11.odt 2/4 rejected, as he was in agreement with the view of the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The election program of the respondent No.2 society, which is a District Milk Federation in so far as Bhandara District is concerned, was announced on 5th May, 2011. In terms of the said election program, the provisional voters list was published on 11/02/2011. On such publication, the petitioners herein objected to their non inclusion in the said list in respect of which objection, the Collector referred the matter to the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act namely The Divisional Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Dairy, Nagpur. The said authority conducted an enquiry into the said aspect as regards the membership of the petitioners. The respondent No.4-Federation produced the necessary documents before the said authority. The Divisional Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Dairy thereafter submitted a report to the Collector in which it was inter alia stated by him that the names of the petitioners do not find place in the membership register of the respondent No.2-society. As indicated above, it is on the said basis that the application of the petitioners for inclusion of their names in the final voters list was rejected by the Collector by the impugned order. wp2330.11.odt 3/4 It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners, by relying upon various documents, in the form of extract of the membership register, the alleged resolution passed by the respondent No.2-Federation, the receipts issued to the petitioners, the share certificates issued to the petitioners that it is beyond pales doubt that the petitioners are the members of the respondent No.2 Society. Per contra, the said documents are sought to be questioned by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 by producing the original register of membership, as also the original proceeding book. Contesting the resolutions on the basis of the said documents, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Society questioned the documents produced by the petitioners on the ground that they are false and fabricated. On perusal of the said original documents produced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Society, it becomes ex facie clear that the documents produced by the petitioners and the originals produced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Society do not match. In fact, in the membership register at the item numbers mentioned against the petitioners the names of some other societies are appearing other than those of the petitioners. In the light of the said contest between the wp2330.11.odt 4/4 parties, serious disputed questions of fact arise for consideration in the above petition, which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open for the petitioners to adopt appropriate proceedings, if so advised, after the elections are over and in the event they file such proceedings, the same would be decided by the concerned Court/authority on their own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made in the instant order. JUDGE KHUNTE