Bombay High Court
Devidas S/O. Narayanrao Walke vs District Deputy Registrar ... on 16 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3234.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3234/2016
Devidas S/o Narayanrao Walke,
aged about 52 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Kunbi Pura, Katol, Tq. Katol
& Distt. Nagpur. ..Petitioner.
..Versus..
1. District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
Nagpur.
2. Returning Officer,
Katol Nagri Co-operative Society,
Near Water Tank, Ghode Plot,
Katol, Tq. Katol, Distt. Nagpur.
3. Namdeo S/o Pralhad Dhawral,
aged about 50 Yrs., Occu. Nil,
R/o Panchavati, Katol,
Tq. Katol, Distt. Nagpur.
4. Katol Nagri Co-operative Society,
through its Manager, near Water
Tank, Ghode Plot, Tq. Katol,
Distt. Nagpur. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Shri C.R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri T.U. Tathod, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Shri Tejas Kene, Advocate for respondent No.4.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 16.6.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri C.R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P.
for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri T.U. Tathod, Advocate for the respondent
2 wp3234.16
No.3 and Shri Tejas Kene, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner and the respondent No.3 both offered their candidature for the
elections of the Managing Committee of respondent No.4 - Co-operative Society.
The petitioner raised dispute about identity of respondent No.3. According to the
petitioner, the record of respondent No.4 - Co-operative Society shows the name of
respondent No.3 as "Namdeo Pralhad Dhawral." The respondent No.3 submitted
the nomination form showing the name as "Namdeo Pralhad Dhawle." The
Returning Officer upheld the objection of petitioner and rejected the nomination form
of respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 filed appeal before the Appellate
Authority without impleading the petitioner as party. The appeal is allowed and the
Appellate Authority has directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination form
of the respondent No.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the
Appellate Authority, has approached this Court.
4. Shri C.R. Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the
document at page No.21 of the paper book, i.e. the list of candidates who submitted
the nomination forms. In this list it is shown that the candidature of Ramrao
Pandurangji Bhakre is proposed by Namdeo Pralhadji Dhawral and according to the
petitioner the proposer of Ramrao Pandurangji Bhakre is respondent No.3.
In this petition, respondent No.3 is shown as "Namdeo Pralhad Dhawral".
3 wp3234.16
The notice of this petition is accepted by the respondent No.3 in that name.
The petitioner has substantiated the objection from the record. The
respondents have not been able to show that Namdeo Pralhadji Dhawral and
Namdeo Pralhad Dhawle is one and the same person. Apparently disputed
questions of fact are involved and it was necessary for the Appellate Authority either
to adjudicate the disputed questions of fact after hearing the petitioner or not to
interfere, at this stage, living the parties to raise the election dispute. The
respondent No.3 has not explained as to why he has not impleaded the petitioner as
party in appeal though the nomination form of the respondent No.3 was rejected by
the Returning Officer in view of the objection of the petitioner.
In the above facts, the impugned order is unsustainable.
Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur on 3rd June, 2016 is set aside and the decision of the Returning
Officer upholding the objection of the petitioner and rejecting nomination form of
respondent No.3 is restored.
(ii) It is clarified that respondent No.3 would be at liberty to raise the election
dispute, if so advised.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(iv) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
