Indrajeet Apparao Tandale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8012 OF 2016 Atmaram Bhujang Tandale ...
Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...
Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8013 OF 2016 Meghraj Rambhau Ghule ...
Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...
Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8014 OF 2016 Indrajeet Apparao Tandale ...
Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...
Respondents ---- Mr. T.G. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.P. Basarkar, AGP for respondent-state.
Mr. Kadam, Advocate for the respondents no. 2 to 4. Mr. V.H. Solanke, Advocate for respondents no. 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 22 in WP/8012/16, WP/8013/16 & WP/8014/16.
---- CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 29-07-2016.
Per Court:
1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP appearing for respondents no. 1 and 3 and Mr. Kadam appearing for respondents no. 2 and 4.
2.
It appears that, in the present petitions candidates whose nominations were accepted have been made parties and have been attempted to be served who, according to instructions of the learned counsel for the petitioners have refused to accept the notice.
3.
Learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad appearing for the petitioner contends that, their requests for approval to nomination has been negatived on the ground that, seconders/proposers nominations were not belonging to the category from which the candidature is proposed of the petitioner i.e. borrowers category. Learned counsel states that, such is neither the requirement in the rule nor in the instructions which are sought to be relied on by the returning officer and as well as the appellate authorities. He submits that, the requirement under sub-rule 3 of rule 20 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committees) Rules, 2014 is that any person whose name is entered in the list of voters may be proposer or seconder for nominating a candidate for elections and said eligibility according to the rules stands satisfied in their cases.
4.
He purports to point out that instructions as contained in the circular issued on 27-12-2014 annexed to the petitions at exhibit 'C' at particularly page 41 and clause 2 as appearing at lower end of the page shows that, even under said circular, there is
no such requirement that a seconder should be a borrower. He therefore submits that, the impugned orders on the face of that are untenable and incompatible with the basic rule and even the instructions, the order is as such has been passed in excess of powers of the authority , the same are patently erroneous. 5.
He further submits that, there cannot be any instructions which would have binding efficacy over and above, the requirements of eligibility under said rule, as such, the reason been given for rejection of nomination that the seconders/proposers are not borrower members is not correct. Apart from that, he submits even said members fulfill the criteria of being borrower, having regard to the events as have been discussed by the appellate authority.
6.
Learned counsel Mr. Kadam contends that, having regard to decision reported in the case of Vijay Singh Krishnarao Parbat of V/s. Returning officer and Ors. reported in 2003(2) ALL MR 523, it was incumbent on the part of petitioners to make the other candidates running the contest ought to be parties. The decision of learned single judge reported in said case also refers to a division bench judgment. Perusal of paragraph no. 9, of aforesaid reported judgment on which reliance is placed, it appears that the said requirement would have been considered to be satisfied had the candidates running the contest been before the high court in
those cases. In the present matter said requirement appears to have to a large extent complied with since the candidates whose nominations have allowed are made parties and have been attempted to be served who have stated to have refused to accept service.
7.
Learned counsel Mr. Kadam is not in a position to come out of the situation as is obtaining on with reference to rule 23 of aforesaid rules and the instructions as are appended to the writ petition 8.
In the wake of aforesaid factual/non-disputable situation, this appears to be a case wherein the court would exercise powers.
9.
Writ petitions stand allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'. Prayer clause 'B' read as under:
"B. By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orders of directions in the like nature, the order dated 22.7.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies in Appeals No. 15/2016, 14/2016 and 18/2016 and rejection of nomination forms by the respondent no.4 Returning Officer dated 8.6.2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently the petitioner may be permitted to contest the election of the respondent no.5 society which is going to be held on 31.7.2016 as their nomination forms be held legal and valid in the interest of justice."
(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH) mub JUDGE