Dismissed

Shri. Bhupinder Singh Tejasingh Ramgudiya v. the District Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2011WP/10032/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the election schedule of a cooperative bank. Holding that the election process had already commenced with polling scheduled, the Court refused to interfere, directing the Registrar to appoint an administrator only if the election is not completed before the outgoing committee's tenure expires.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands rejected except for the direction to appoint an administrator if the election is not completed before the expiry of the outgoing committee's tenure.

Shri. Bhupinder Singh Tejasingh Ramgudiya Vs the District Deputy… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2011)

: 1 :

wp.10032.2011

vss

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10032 OF 2011

¶6

Bhupinder Singh Tejasingh Ramgudia .. Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

District Deputy Registrar & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Ms.Geeta P. Mulekar for the Petitioner Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 4 Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar for Resp. No.3

¶10

CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.

¶11

DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2011

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard Ms.Mulekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner claims to be one of the members of Respondent

¶15

No.3 cooperative Bank which is a registered cooperative society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner prays for quashing of the election schedule announced by Respondent No.1 so as to elect a new managing committee of Respondent No.3 cooperative bank and for further directions to appoint an Administrator to take over the management of the said bank.

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

wp.10032.2011

¶18

There is no dispute that the tenure of the present managing committee has expired on 13.11.2011. Respondent No.1 by his letter dated 27.9.2011 called upon the bank to publish the election programme for the new managing committee for the period from 2011 to 2016 and accordingly election programme has been published in the local newspapers on 30.9.2011 and as per the said publication, the voters’ list was to be displayed on 30.9.2011. The nomination forms have been issued between 5^th to 16^th November, 2011 and the last date to withdraw the nomination is 5.12.2011. The finalised list of contesting candidates is due to be published on 7.12.2011 and the polling will take place on 18.12.2011. It is the contention of the petitioner that the provisional voters’ list was not published on 30.9.2011. In fact, the election programme published in the local newspapers clearly states that the provisional voters’ list was displayed at 3 different places i.e., (i) at the office of the District Deputy Registrar; (ii) at the premises of the Bank and (iii) the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune City (1). There is nothing on record to point out that the petitioner had objected in writing to the provisional voters’ list and it is too late now for the petitioner to contend that the provisional voters’ list was not displayed at all. When the election process has already been set in

¶19

: 3 :

¶20

wp.10032.2011

¶21

motion, this Court would be slow in interfering with the same.

¶22

Ms.Mulekar then submitted that as the term of the present managing committee was expiring on 13.11.2011, Respondent No.1 ought to have taken steps to hold the election on or before 13.11.2011 so that the new managing committee could have resumed the office from 14.11.2011 onwards. This was not done and therefore the payer for appointment of administrator.

¶23

As noted earlier, the election programme has been already published and the polling is scheduled to take place on 18.12.2011 and therefore at this stage, such a prayer need not be considered. However, it must be noted by Respondent No.1 that is the new committee is not elected before the expiry of the tenure of the existing committee and if for some reasons such schedule is not likely to be followed, he has to appoint an administrator in place of the outgoing managing committee. This must be followed in future.

¶24

As far as this petition is concerned, we are satisfied that no

¶25

further directions are required to be given to the respondents as the election is scheduled to take place on 18.12.2011.

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

wp.10032.2011

¶28

Hence, save and except the above directions, the petition

¶29

stands rejected.

¶30

(SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)

¶31

(B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Shri. Bhupinder Singh Tejasingh Ramgudiya v. the District Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Bhupinder Singh Tejasingh Ramgudiya v. the District Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Limbaji Maruti Tapase Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Vipul Vilasrao Pathak and Ors. Vs the Sate of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr Rohit Rameshchandra Kakani and Ors. Vs the Sate of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip Krishnaji Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Pundalik Sitaram Pawar Vs the Education Officer Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Nikita Laxman Maske Vs State of Maharashtra