Ramakant vs Collector, Chandrapur, Kodshi ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 56 Bom

JUDGMENT

1. Advocate for the petitioner states that he will willing to delete respondent no.2 at his risk. Accordingly, respondent no.2, who has been served is allowed to be deleted.

2. The matter is heard.

3. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith.

4. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as under :-

On 15.10.2001 the Managing Committee of respondent no.2 primary society resolved to send petitioner as delegate on behalf of the primary society to respondent no.3 specified society . On 22.10.2001 the Collector, Chandrapur published a provisional list of voters. On 31.10.2001 an application was made by the petitioner to the Collector, Chandrapur i.e. respondent no.1, placing on record the passing of Resolution in his favour on 15.10.2001 and requesting that his name be included in the final list of voters. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Collector has acknowledged his letter dated 13.10.2001, which also enclosed a true copy of Resolution of the Management.

5. The Collector, however, has passsed an impugned order stating that there is no Resolution of respondent no.2 society and hence the place of its representative is kept vacant. On this ground alone, the Collector rejected the petitioners objection. The learned A.G.P. raised some contention stating that there was no quorum when the resolution was passed by the respondent no.2 society. This is, however, not the reason given by the Collector. The order of the Collector seems to have passed without proper application of mind to the contents of resolution dated 15.10.2001.

6. In the circumstances, Rule in this petition is made absolute, in terms of Prayer Clause I.