Manish Sadashivrao Korpe And Others v. Taluka Co-Op. Election Officer/ Assistant Registrar Co-Op. Society, Daryapur And ORS.

(1) 14wp640.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.640/2025 Manish Sadashivrao Korpe and Ors. .Vs. Taluka Co-Operative Election Officer/Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Daryapur & Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. A. Gawande, Advocate for petitioners.

Ms D. V. Sapkal, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.

CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

DATE :

FEBRUARY 5, 2025 Heard.

2.

The petitioners are aggrieved by rejection of their request to incorporate their names in voters' list of respondent No.2 - Society. 3.

Respondent No.1 - Election Officer/Assistant Registrar has refused the request on the following grounds; receipts of share capital submitted by the petitioners were not of respondent No.2 - Society and were not matching with the record of society, the receipts do not contain signatures of President and Manager, there is no entry in the cash book of the society as regards receiving the amounts mentioned in the receipts and lastly names of the petitioners are not appearing in Register - I, maintained by the society.

5.

Thus, there appears a dispute whether the receipts submitted by the petitioner were indeed belonging to the society. This dispute on facts cannot be resolved in the writ jurisdiction. The remedy, if any, lies before different forum.

6.

In the circumstances, the reasons assigned by respondent No.1 to refuse the request to incorporate names of petitioners in the voters' list, appear to be in consonance with the facts and the record available before respondent No.1. No interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Anil L. Pansare, J.) Kahale