Hiraman Zingar Kodwate, Member Of Nutan Jangal Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha v. Govt. Of Maha. Thr. Dist. Co-Op. Election Officer, Bhandara Zilha Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank And ORS

1 wp664.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 664/2017 Hiraman Zingar Kodwate ..VS..

Govt. of Maharashtra & ors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.P. Maldure, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 & 4 Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 & 5 CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 03/01/2019 None appeared for the petitioner when the matter is called out.

Heard Shri V.P. Maldure, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 & 4 and Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 & 5.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent no. 1 directing inclusion of the name of the respondent no. 3 in the list of voters. The learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 & 5 has pointed out that the elections of the respondent no. 2 - Bank are stayed by the Division Bench of this Court while considering the writ petitions which are pending. The learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 & 5 has submitted that the elections are delayed by more than a year and the entitlement/eligibility of the petitioner to participate in the elections which may be held after further orders are passed by

2 wp664.17 the Division Bench will have to be considered. It is submitted that there is every chance that for the elections, fresh process may be conducted. It is submitted that in these facts, nothing survives in the petition.

In the facts of the case, in my view, the following order would sub-serve the ends of justice:- (a) Accepting the submission made on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, the writ petition is disposed as infructuous.

(b) However, in the election process which would be undertaken, if the impugned order affects the petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to revive this writ petition after serving the copy of the application on the advocates representing the respondents.

(c) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE Ansari