Mr. Naresh H. Gangwani v. Mr. R.S. Lokhande And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.17562 OF 2015 Mr. Naresh H Gangwani : Petitioner versus Mr. R S Lokhande and ors.

: Respondents.

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.17563 OF 2015 Mr. Naresh H Gangwani : Petitioner versus Mr. R S Lokhande and ors.

: Respondents.

Mr. Naresh H Gangwani the Petitioner in Person in both the WPs. Mr. S D Rayrikar AGP for the Respondent No.1 in both the WPs. Mr. Sudam Kale for the Respondent No.5 in both the WPs. CORAM :

R. M. SAVANT, J.

DATE :

27th July 2015 P.C.

The above Writ Petitions contain a host of prayers which are listed from (a) to (f) in the prayer clauses of both the Petitions. However, only prayer that can be considered by this Court is prayer clause (a) in both the Petitions by which the Petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside the order dated 26/06/2015 passed by the Respondent No.1 allowing the Appeals filed by the Respondent No.2 in each of the above Petitions i.e. Mr. Pawankumar Santram Dhall and Mr.Harish Amarnath Upal respectively. The said Appeals

were filed by the Respondent No.2 in each of the Petitions challenging the rejection of their nominations for contesting the elections to the managing committee of the Society known as Seva Samiti CHS Ltd. By the impugned order the Appeals filed by each of the Respondent No.2 came to be allowed and resultantly, their nominations filed by them were held to be valid. The Petitioner in person states that the said order was passed without hearing the Petitioner who was the objector to the nominations as also without hearing the other Respondents to the Appeals. The learned AGP points out that the elections to the managing committee of the said Society took place on 5/7/2015 and therefore since the elections are over, no reliefs can be granted in the above Petitions.

Since the fact of the elections having been held on 5/7/2015 transcend the order dated 26/6/2015 which is impugned in the above Petitions, it is not possible to entertain the above Petitions, in so far as the said relief is concerned. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the elections, he may adopt appropriate remedy in law against the outcome of the said elections. In so far as the other reliefs are concerned, it is not possible to entertain the above Petitions.

authorities for the said reliefs and if any such application is made by the Petitioner, the appropriate authorities may consider the same in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the above Writ Petitions are dismissed.

[R.M.SAVANT, J]