Bombay High Court
Dilip S/O Jadhavraoji Mathankar ... vs State Of Maha. Thr. Asst. ... on 23 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
7-WP3397.22.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3397 OF 2022
Dilip Jadhavraoji Mathankar and others
-Vs.-
State of Maharashtra and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.P.S.Chawhan, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 23.06.2022
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to invoke
jurisdiction of this Court to challenge order dated
06/06/2022, passed by the respondent No.1, i.e. the
Election Officer and the Assistant Registrar of
Cooperative Societies. It is the contention of the
petitioners that the impugned order has rejected the
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners without
giving any reason and that since the issues raised by the
petitioners concerned the very ineligibility of
respondent Nos.3 to 7 as being defaulters, the
impugned order deserves interference.
3. This Court has considered the sequence of
events given in the present case. The documents on
record show that the final voters list in the present case
concerning elections to the respondent No.8-
KHUNTE
7-WP3397.22.odt
Cooperative Society was published on 19/05/2022.
The petitioners appear to be aggrieved by the inclusion
of the respondent Nos.3 to 7 in the said final voters list.
It is an admitted position that instead of immediately
challenging the said final voters list, the petitioners
approached the respondent No.1-Election Officer on
03/06/2022, claiming that respondent Nos.3 to 7 being
defaulters, were not eligible for inclusion in the final
voters list. They sought to support the said contention
by way of certain material placed before the respondent
No.1-Election Officer.
4. By the impugned order dated 06/06/2022, the
aforesaid application, filed on 03/06/2022, has been
rejected by the respondent No.1. It is simply stated in
the order that since the final voters list is already
issued, no specific order can now be passed on the
application filed by the petitioners.
5. This Court is of the opinion that after the final
voters list has been issued, as also the fact that the
process of election having been triggered, has already
reached the stage of allotment of symbols to the
contesting candidates, it cannot be said that the
respondent No.1-Election Officer committed any error
in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, the
petitioners were unable to show as to under which
provision the respondent No.1-Election Officer could
have either reviewed or revised his own order of
finalization of voters list.
KHUNTE
7-WP3397.22.odt
6. Insofar as invoking jurisdiction of this Court is
concerned, the law is by now well settled in a catena of
judgments, including the judgment of this Court in the
case of Pandurang Laxman Kadam and others v. State of
Maharashtra and others, reported in 2016 (6) Bom.C.R.
75, wherein it is laid down that an aggrieved person can
certainly raise his grievance in a properly instituted
election dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is also laid down
that only in exceptional circumstances where allegations
raised by aggrieved persons, if accepted, would
materially and substantially affect the election, that this
Court may entertain a challenge to such an order passed
by the Election Officer. Even as regards the electoral
rolls, inclusion and deletion of names in the voters list,
the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid
judgment has held that as per the aforesaid Act and the
Rules framed thereunder, the remedy of election
dispute under section 91 of the Act cannot be said to be
an inefficacious remedy.
7. Considering the position of law and the fact that
in the present case the petitioners have not been able to
show that exceptional circumstances exist for this Court
to exercise its jurisdiction, it is found that the present
petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Signed By:GHANSHYAM S JUDGE
KHUNTE
Signing Date:24.06.2022 18:26
KHUNTE
