Achyut Sadashiv Pingale vs The Returning Officer, Nagar ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15841 Bom

                                                                         956.WP.12288.21.odt


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO.12288 OF 2021

                    ACHYUT SADASHIV PINGALE
                              VERSUS
     THE RETURNING OFFICER, NAGAR URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
                     AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS

                                        ...
             Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Suryawanshi Kamlakar J.
                 Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.K. Kadam
        Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Salgar h/f. Mr. N.V. Gaware
     Advocate for Respondent Nos.3,4,6,8 to 10 : Mr. Shaikh M.A. Jahagirdar
               Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Amit Yadkikar
                Advocate for Respondent No.7 : Mr. A.V. Sakolkar
                                        ...

                                    CORAM   :    MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                                    DATE    :    16.11.2021

PER COURT :

Heard the learned advocates of both the sides finally at their

request.

2. The petitioner who had filed a nomination in the election of the

respondent No. 2 Bank is aggrieved by rejection of his objection to the

candidature of respondent Nos.3 to 10, by the Returning Officer respondent

No.1 by the order under challenge.

3. The learned advocate for the contesting respondents point out

that the petitioner has withdrawn his candidature interregnum and has no

locus now to assail the order passed by the Returning Officer.

4. The statement of the learned advocates for the contesting

956.WP.12288.21.odt

respondents has not been specifically controverted on behalf of the

petitioner.

5. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Karmaveer Tulshiram

Autade and Ors. Vs. The State Election Commission Mumbai and Ors.; 2021

(2) Mh.L.J. 349, has taken a view that a High Court cannot exercise the

jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the

matters of election at this stage. Though the dispute in that case pertained

to election of the Gram Panchayat under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat

Act the same analogy can be fruitfully borrowed even in respect of elections

to the respondent No.2 Bank under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies

Act, 1960.

6. A coordinate bench of this Court, following the judgment of the

Full Bench (supra) in Writ Petition No.12006/2021 with connected matters

by the judgment and order dated 05.11.2021 has refused to entertain the

Writ Petitions.

7. For the self same reasons, even the present petition is liable to

be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed keeping open the liberty to the

petitioner to avail of the appropriate remedy.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

habeeb