← Library
Bombay High CourtRPW/73/2015dismissed

Shri. Hajrat Kadar Mulani And ANR v. District Co-Operative Election Officer, Regional Deputy Director, Textiles And ANR

2015-07-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.M. Savant.2 pages

RPWST-15729-15.doc 08.07.2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.15729 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4973 OF 2015 Shri. Hajrat Kadar Mulani and another .. Petitioners

Versus

District Co­operative Election Officer, @ Regional Deputy Director, Textiles, Solapur and another .. Respondents Mr. Amitkumar D. Sale, for the Petitioners.

Mr. S. S. Shah i/by Mr. S. S. Inamdar, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J.

DATE : 08th JULY, 2015 P.C.

1.

The above Review Petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 08.06.2015, by which order the above Writ Petition being No.4973 of 2015 came to be dismissed and resultantly, the order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the District Co­operative Election Officer and Regional Deputy Director, Textiles, Solapur, came to be confirmed. By the said order, the District Co­operative Election Authority has rejected the Petitioner's objection to the final voters list which objection was to the effect that number of voters has to be shown as 2380. The District Election Officer BGP.

RPWST-15729-15.doc 08.07.2015 has referred to the material which is in paragraph 4 of its order in support of the finding that the final list of members is correct and proper. The above Review Petition is filed on the basis that the Petitioner has now documents to show that voters in excess of 2380 cannot be termed as members as they have not fulfilled their obligation in respect of the payment of the membership fees etc. It is required to be noted that the District Election Officer has taken into consideration a document in respect of the elections which took place in the year 2007, wherein the voters were numbering 4996. The said number of members is definitely more than 2380 as claimed by the Petitioner. In my view, assuming that the Petitioner has any other document the same would hardly make any difference.

2.

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner and having perused the grounds for review, no case for review in any of eventualities mentioned in Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code is made out. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M. SAVANT, J] BGP.