Bombay High Court
Dilip Pralhadrao Apale And Others vs Maharashtra State Cooperative ... on 7 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp1948.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1948 OF 2016
1. Dilip Pralhadrao Apale,
aged about 51 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
2. Vijay Shrikrishna Junghare,
aged about 45 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
3. Manoj Pralhadrao Apale,
aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
4. Sagar Subhash Apale
aged about 25 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
all r.o at post Kakda,
Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati. .... PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. Maharashtra State Co-operative Election Authority
through its Secretary,
Central Administrative Building, B.G. Road,
In front of Office of Collector,
Pune.
2. Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Society, Achalpur,
District Amravati.
3. Election Officer, Seva Sahakari Society Ltd.,
Kakda, Reg. No. 715, Tq. Achalpur,
District Amravati.
4. Seva Sahakari Society Ltd.,
Kakda, Reg. No. 715, Tq. Achalpur,
District Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:10 :::
wp1948.16
2
Shri A.J. & P.A. Kadu Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri Amit Balpande, AGP, for Respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Shri S.J. Kadu Advocate for Respondent no. 4.
Shri Tejas Deshpande Advocate for applicant in C.A. No. 829/16 (intervention).
.....
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 07.04.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of parties.
2. It is seen from the impugned communication that names of
petitioners 2 and 4 have been deleted from the voters' list on the ground that
these petitioners were not the members of the society for a continuous period of
two years. The objection that was initially taken was on the ground that these
petitioners being not the owners of any agricultural land, were not qualified to be
members from the category of agriculturists. Thus, the objection was raised on
one ground and it was upheld on some different ground and, in such a case, a
proper inquiry was required. However, it appears that same has not been
conducted by the respondent no. 3- Election Officer. Rule 8 of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 requires that inquiry,
may be of summary nature, is to be conducted before the elections are
conducted. That apart, it is wrongly stated that the names of petitioners 2 and 4
were already included in the voters' list. Learned counsel could not show to me
from the voters' list that the names of these petitioners are included therein.
Statement has also been made that the name of petitioner no. 3 would be
wp1948.16
included in the voters' list. But fact remains that the names of petitioners 2 and 4
have not been dealt with properly.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the
case of similarly situated members numbering 119 should also be considered by
the Election Officer as, according to him, this petition has been filed in a
representative capacity. He submits that the law is settled in this regard and he is
ready to cite judgments before this Court. Without going into the merits of this
submission, what would be necessary is to consider as to who are these persons
on whose behalf the writ petition has been filed in a representative capacity and
the answer to this question, upon perusal of the writ petition, comes to a
disappointing no. The names of 119 members have been stated to be deleted
but names of all these members are not given and also it is not clarified as to on
what ground their names have been directed to be deleted from the voters' list.
Therefore, on such a vague ground the contention cannot be considered.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to me the cases
of The Chairman, T. N. Housing Board, Madras Vs. T. N. Ganapathy - AIR 1990
SC 642 and Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others - (2016) 2 SCC 779 to
support his contention that the provisions of Order 1 rules 8 and 9 are applicable
to the facts of this case also.
There would be no doubt about the principle of law laid down
in these cases. However, there are certain requirements of the provisions of
Order 1 rule 8, which have not been complied with and fulfilled in this case. No
wp1948.16
leave of the Court has been obtained. That apart, as already stated, the list of
other similarly situated members, numbering 119, has not been furnished to the
Court and, therefore, it cannot be known as to who are to be heard or who are
to be informed of the decision of this Court. Ordinarily, the principle of law is
that the Court decides a lis between the parties, who are before the Court. In
the absence of non compliance of the conditions of Order 1 Rule 8, it would not
be possible for this Court to treat this writ petition at this stage as a
representative writ petition. This order, therefore, shall be confined only to the
parties before this Court in the present writ petition, who are petitioner Nos. 1 to
5. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed
and the matter needs to be remanded back to the respondent no. 3 for a
decision in accordance with law by setting aside the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed
and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no. 3 for deciding
the objection raised, in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to cost.
JUDGE
/TA/
