Sangita Bhausaheb Chindhe vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2283 Bom

                                         1                   WP-4681.16.doc




                                                                         
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                 
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 4681 OF 2016




                                                
              Sangita Bhausaheb Chindhe
              Age _____, years, occup. Agril.,
              R/o Devli, Tq. Gangapur,




                                      
              District Aurangabad                    ..   Petitioner

                      versus 
     01.      The State of Maharashtra,
              through Co-operation Department,
                            
              Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

     02.      The Assistant Registrar,
              Co-operative Societies,
              Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad
      


     03.      The Returning Officer, [Election
   



              Officer] Shiregaon Vividh Karkyakari
              Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit,
              Shiregaon, Tq. Gangapur,
              Dist. Aurangabad





     04.      Priya Dinesh Mutha,
              Age major, occup. Household,
              R/o Lasur Station, Tq. Gangapur,
              Dist. Aurangabad





     05.      Shiregaon Vividh Karkyakari Seva
              Sanstha Maryadit, Shiregaon,
              Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad              .. Respondents


                       ---
     Mr. Abhishek M. Hajare, Advocate for petitioner
     Mr. S. K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents
     no. 1 to 3
     Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent no. 4




    ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016                 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:56:46 :::
                                                  2                    WP-4681.16.doc


                                      CORAM :        SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                      DATE :         4th May, 2016




                                                          
     ORAL JUDGMENT :


     1.       Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.              Heard the parties




                                                         
     finally, by consent.

2. Petitioner is before this court, aggrieved by decision of the

returning officer dated 13-04-2016 overruling her objection to

nomination of respondent no. 4 contending that it cannot be said

that respondent no. 4 qualifies to be a member, much less a voter

for election of the managing committee since she does not possess

minimum land holding in the area of operation of society.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner, for aforesaid purpose, places

reliance on a certificate issued on 13-04-2016 by concerned talathi.

He further refers to that before objection to the nomination of

respondent no. 4, petitioner had moved objection to her

membership, however, said movement has not been responded to.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 contends that the

objection has been properly overruled. According to him,

respondent no. 4 has been continuously without interruption

member of society since 2011. He submits, certificate of talathi

relied on by petitioner has been obtained at the threshold of the

election at such a stage which shall not be able to obfuscate

3 WP-4681.16.doc

nomination of respondent no. 4. No opportunity has been afforded

to respondent no. 4 in respect of allegations upon which the

objection has been taken to her nomination. He further submits

that the objection has been rightly overruled having regard to the

reasons which are appearing in the order impugned.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of

respondents no. 1 to 3 contends that the elections have reached a

very advanced stage and the polling is scheduled on 07-05-2016.

He further submits that in any case objection to the nomination of

respondent no. 4 on the ground that she cannot be a member could

not have been entertained by the returning officer in an enquiry

which is of summary nature. He submits that having regard to the

record which has been referred to and considered as has been

stated by the responsible officer of the society, the order impugned

has been passed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further

submits that it is not the case that respondent no. 4 has been

removed from membership after due procedure being followed and

as such no fault can be found with impugned order.

6. Having regard to aforesaid, this does not appear to be a case

that there is an order which is unreasoned or, for that matter,there

is any error in the same. The order appears to have been with

reference to the record as had been obtaining on the date for filing

nomination. The certificate alone issued by the talathi, during the

4 WP-4681.16.doc

course of election, is without giving any opportunity to question its

authenticity at the instance of respondent no.4, by itself would not

be sufficient to consider that respondent no. 4 at this juncture

cannot be said to be a member.

7. Having regard to aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with

impugned order.

8. Writ petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

9.

However, it would be open for the petitioner to take up

objection to the nomination of respondent no. 4 in the proceedings

as may be legitimately available to her in law, including an election

petition.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

pnd