← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/7179/2022dismissed

Sandeep Madhukar Ugale v. Lasalgaon Gramin Bigar Shethi Sahakari Pathasanstha , Maryadit And ORS

2022-06-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.D. Dhanuka,Hon'Ble Shri Justice M. G. Sewlikar2 pages

1 / 2 07-WP-7179-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7179 OF 2022 Sandeep Madhukar Ugale .... Petitioner versus Lasalgaon Gramin Bigar Shethi Sahakari Pathasanstha Maryadit, Lasalgaon & Ors.

... Respondents .......

• Mr. Bhushan U. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner. • Mr. Karan S. Thorat, AGP for State/Respondent No.3. • Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar, Chief Standing Counsel - SCEA, for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA & M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATE : 21st JUNE, 2022.

P.C. :

1.

Leave to amend is granted to correct the designation of the Respondent No.2 as Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Taluka Co-operative Election Officer. Amendment be carried out forthwith with copy to other side. Re-verification is dispensed with.

2.

This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Digitally signed by MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Date:

2022.06.27 17:39:44 +0530 MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 02/06/2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 Assistant Registrar Nesarikar

2 / 2 07-WP-7179-22.odt Co-operative Societies, deleting name of the Petitioner from the voters' list.

3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute that the Respondent No.1 Society has already expelled the Petitioner from its membership. The Petitioner has not impugned such order of expulsion from the membership. The question of entering the name of the Petitioner in the provisional list or final list does not arise. If the impugned order of expulsion passed by the Respondent No.1 is set aside by the appropriate authority, the Petitioner would be at liberty to apply for inclusion of his name as voter in the election that would be held in future. 4.

Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

5.

The Petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order of expulsion in accordance with law.

(M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA , J.)