Bombay High Court
Shrikant Bhimraoji Gawande vs Assistant Registrar Seva ... on 15 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3231,3232, 3233.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3231 OF 2016
Shrikant Bhimraoji Gawande,
Age 45 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Dattapur, Tahsil-Dhamangaon Rly.,
District - Amravati. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Assistant Registrar,
Seva Sahakari Society, Dattapur,
Registration No.1163, Tahsil -
Dhamangaon Rly., District - Amravati.
2) Election Returning Officer,
Seva Sahakari Society, Dattapur,
Registration No.1163, Tahsil -
Dhamangaon Rly., District -
Amravati.
3) Seva Sahakari Society,
Dattapur, Registration No.1163,
through its Secretary, Dattapur,
Tahsil - Dhamangaon Rly.,
District - Amravati.
4) Shri Santosh Mahadeorao Bawankule,
Aged 51 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Mohhamad Pura, Ward No.1,
Dhamangaon Rly., Tahsil - Dhamangaon
Rly., District - Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:28:10 :::
2 wp3231,3232, 3233.16
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3232 OF 2016
Shrikant Bhimraoji Gawande,
Age 45 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Dattapur, Tahsil-Dhamangaon Rly.,
District - Amravati. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Assistant Registrar,
Seva Sahakari Society, Dattapur,
Registration No.1163, Tahsil -
Dhamangaon Rly., District - Amravati.
2) Election Returning Officer,
Seva Sahakari Society, Dattapur,
Registration No.1163, Tahsil -
Dhamangaon Rly., District -
Amravati.
3) Seva Sahakari Society,
Dattapur, Registration No.1163,
through its Secretary, Dattapur,
Tahsil - Dhamangaon Rly.,
District - Amravati.
4) Shri Pundlik Jayram Kalmegh,
Aged 75 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Bhilli, At Post-Hingangaon
(Kasarkhed), Tahsil - Dhamangaon
Rly., District - Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:28:10 :::
3 wp3231,3232, 3233.16
WRIT PETITION NO.3233 OF 2016
Shrikant Bhimraoji Gawande,
Age 45 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Dattapur, Tahsil-Dhamangaon Rly.,
District - Amravati. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Assistant Registrar,
Seva Sahakari Society, Dattapur,
Registration No.1163, Tahsil -
Dhamangaon Rly., District - Amravati.
2) Election Returning Officer,
Seva Sahakari Society, Dattapur,
Registration No.1163, Tahsil -
Dhamangaon Rly., District -
Amravati.
3) Seva Sahakari Society,
Dattapur, Registration No.1163,
through its Secretary, Dattapur,
Tahsil - Dhamangaon Rly.,
District - Amravati.
4) Sau. Mainabai Anopchand Jangda,
Aged 68 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Gandhi Chowk, Dhamangaon Rly.,
Tahsil - Dhamangaon Rly.,
District - Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:28:10 :::
4 wp3231,3232, 3233.16
______________________________________________________________
Shri A.S. Dhore, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri H.R. Dhumale, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 and 2,
Shri Ashish Rathi, Advocate for the respondent No.3,
Shri P.A. Rajurkar, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 15
JUNE, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri A.S. Dhore, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri
H.R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1
and 2, Shri Ashish Rathi, Advocate for the respondent No.3 and Shri
P.A. Rajurkar, Advocate for the respondent No.4 in each petition.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The elections of managing committee of the respondent
No.3-society are scheduled for 16-06-2016. The petitioner and the
respondent No.4 in each petition submitted their nomination forms.
The petitioner raised an objection for acceptance of nomination forms
of respondent No.4 in each petition on the ground that the proposer
and seconder of the respondent No.4 in each petition are not from the
general borrowers constituency from which the petitioner and the
5 wp3231,3232, 3233.16
respondent No.4 in each petition intend to contest. The objection was
taken, relying on the provisions of Rule 20(3) of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter
referred to as "Rules of 2014"). The Returning Officer upheld the
objection of the petitioner and rejected the nomination forms of the
respondent No.4 in each petition. Being aggrieved by the decision of
the Returning Officer, the respondent No.4 in each petition had filed
appeals before the Assistant Registrar who allowed the appeals by the
impugned orders and directed that the nomination forms of the
respondent No.4 in each petition be accepted. The petitioner being
aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar, has filed
these petitions.
4. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.4 in each
petition and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 have referred to the provisions of Rule 78 of
the Rules of 2014 and have submitted that the petitioner can raise the
election dispute and it will not be proper to interfere with the election
process at this stage. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.4 in
each petition has submitted that the concerned authority did not
publish the voters' list as contemplated by Rule 6 of the Rules of 2014
6 wp3231,3232, 3233.16
and therefore, the inadvertent mistake has occurred while giving the
names of the proposer and seconder in the nomination forms.
5. As far as the submission made on behalf of the
respondents relying on Rule 78 of the Rules of 2014, it is not accepted
as the acceptance of nomination forms of the respondent No.4 under
the orders of the appellate authority (Assistant Registrar) is clearly in
breach of the mandate of Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 2014. The
adjudication of the issue raised by the petitioner does not require
consideration of any factual aspects. Moreover, while issuing notices
of these petitions on 09-06-2016, an interim order is passed by this
Court directing the Returning Officer to put note below the names of
the respondent No.4 in each petition in the final list of candidates that
the names of the respondent No.4 in the list and the allotment of
symbol to the respondent No.4 shall be subject to further orders which
may be passed in these petitions. In these facts, it cannot be said that
the election process is being interfered when it is at last stages.
6. The submission made on behalf of the respondent No.4
relying on the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2014 that the
provisional list of voters is not prepared properly and the names of
voters are not arranged constituency-wise, also cannot be accepted as
7 wp3231,3232, 3233.16
the respondent No.4 in each petition, who intend to contest the
election of managing committee are supposed to know that while
submitting the nomination forms for their candidature from the
general borrowers constituency, they are required to have proposer
and seconder from the same constituency. The respondent No.4
cannot plead ignorance of the statutory requirements.
7.
In view of the above, the orders passed by the Assistant
Registrar are unsustainable.
8. Hence, the following order :
(i) The impugned orders are set aside.
(ii) The decision of the Returning Officer is restored.
(iii) The Returning Officer is directed to reject the nomination
forms of the respondent No.4 in each petition and to
delete the names of the respondent No.4 in each petition
from the list of validly nominated candidates.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
adgokar
