Bombay High CourtWP/3829/2015dismissedrule discharged

Kishor Bhaskarrao Banarase And Another v. District Cooperative Election Officer And District Deputy Registrar, Yavatmal And Others

2015-07-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp3814.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.3814 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3824 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3825 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3826 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3827 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3828 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3829 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3830 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3831 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3832 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3833 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3834 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3836 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3837 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3838 OF 2015, WRIT PETITION NO.3839 OF 2015 & WRIT PETITION NO.3840 OF 2015.

(Shri Kishor Bhaskarrao Banarase and another ..vs.. District Cooperative Election Officer and District Deputy Registrar, Yavatmal and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri D.M. Kale, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Firdos Mirza, Advocate for the respondent No.3. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 17-07-2015 These petitions raise a common ground i.e. about the eligibility of the respondents to contest the elections. 2.

The submission of the petitioners is that the respondents have not paid the difference of amount as per the enhanced building fee as resolved in the meeting dated 04-09-2011. Shri F.T. Mirza, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 has pointed out the resolution No.10/8 by which the decision to enhance the building fee was taken and building fee was enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.500/-. The submission on behalf of the respondent is that the enhanced building fee is to be charged from the new members to be enrolled and

2 wp3814.15 enhanced fee is not to be charged to the members who are enrolled prior to 04-09-2011. The appellate authority has considered the resolution and has taken the possible view which cannot be said to be perverse.

I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE pma