Shivaji Govardhan Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

{1}

1101.14wo.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1101 OF 2014

¶5

Shivaji Govardhan Shinde
and others.

¶6

Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Respondent/s

¶10

Mr. M.S. Deshmukh,advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.G. Patil, Additional Govt. Pleader, for the
Respondent

¶11

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2014.

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1]The petitioner is challenging the election
programme dated 30th January, 2014 ( Annexure “J”),
published by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Shrirampur, in respect of the election of
the Managing Committee, and to the extent of the
reserved seats, of the respondent No.4 society.

¶14

2]It is submitted that this programme is not
in consonance with and rather deviates from the
directions issued by the Cooperative court at

¶15

{2}

¶16

1101.14wo.odt

¶17

Shrirampur, in Dispute No. 103 of 2011 and equally,
fails to abide by the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of this court in a writ petition, by which the
orders passed by the appellate court in the dispute
earlier operating, were set aside.

¶18

3]At the outset, we indicated to Shri
Deshmukh, that perusal of this programme reflects that
the stages, which have been notified by the Returning
Officer, commenced from publication of the election
programme, which is dated 30th January, 2014. The date
of withdrawal of nominations is 1st February, 2014.
The date of publication of the final list of
contesting candidates is 1st February, 2014. The
allotment of symbols is on 2nd February, 2014 and what
remains, is the polling, if required, on 16th February,
2014. Therefore, in writ jurisdiction, it would not be
proper to interfere with the election programme at
such an advanced stage.

¶19

4]However, Mr. Deshmukh, placed reliance uon
the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in
the case of “Chandrakant Mahadeo Patole vs. State of
Maharashtra and others”in W.P. No. 1539 of 2009,
passed on 5th August, 2009.

¶20

5]Mr. Deshmukh, also places reliance upon
another Division Bench judgment of this court in the
case of“Pandurang Hindurao Patil Vs. State of
Maharashtra“reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 1081 and the
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case
of “Shree Sant Sadguru (Maunigiri) Maharaj Sahakari

¶21

1101.14wo.odt

¶22

{3}

¶23

Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha Vs. Sate of Maharashtra

¶24

reported inAIR 2001 SC 3982.

¶25

6]He also relies upon the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6587 of 2013, decided
on 24th December, 2013, and directions therein and
submits that the programme notified is completely
contradictory to the same. Further, there is an
attempt to modify the same by issuing a corrigendum.
The issuance of that corrigendum is not permissible in
law. Even otherwise, corrigendum does not meet the
requirement laid down in the decision of the learned
Single Judge.

¶26

7]We are unable to accept these contentions,
for the simple reason that, whether to exercise our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in matters of election, depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case, and all that the
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court and the
Division Bench lay down is that, availability of
alternate remedy to challenge the election process and
its results is not an absolute bar for entertaining a
writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. In every judgment pressed into service by
the learned counsel, what has been emphasized is that
the availability of an alternate remedy, does not
constitute a bar rather, an absolute bar, but, this is
a rule of caution and prudence.

¶27

8]We are aware of these principles and no
decision need to be noticed for that purpose.

¶28

{4} 1101.14wo.odt

¶29

However, whether election programme notified or
whether corrigendum thereof, would meet the
requirements or directions issued, in a judgment of
this court, or of the cooperative court, are matters
essentially of factual nature.

¶30

9]We will have to scan the entire programme,
the corrigendum, the deficiencies and defects, which
were earlier directed to be removed and rectified,
but, which have crept in once again, or, rather, have
been brought in or introduced by corrigendum. These
are not matters which could be resolved and at a
stage, at which the petitioner has approached this
court.

¶31

10]All that remains in terms of the election
programme is polling and counting of votes. At this
stage, when, on the earlier occasion, some of the
parties approached a competent court and invoked its
jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, then, we do not see, how in
this case, they can be allowed to question the entire
process and results of elections, as notified.
Therefore, this is not the stage, where, we should
interfere with the elections in writ jurisdiction.

¶32

11]The writ petition is disposed of on the
ground that the petitioners have an alternate and
efficacious remedy, wherein, they can raise all issues
and have them decided. Even if the elections are held
and results are declared, nothing prevents the
competent court from issuing appropriate declaration,

¶33

{5} 1101.14wo.odt

¶34

so as to set aside those results and the process as a
whole.

¶35

12]Keeping all contentions open for being
raised in such proceedings and of both sides, we
dispose of this writ petition.

¶36

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE][S.C. DHARMADHIKARI]
 JUDGEJUDGE.

¶37

grt/-

Shivaji Govardhan Shinde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Govardhan Shinde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Fishermans Co-Operati E Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vithalrao Genba Mete Vs Basavraj Shivaling Jibkate and Others

Mahesh Tukaram Bharshankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hamed Abdulla Bajaman and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Andors

Mohammed Abdul Kareem Shaikh Jeelani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandrakalabai Trimbak Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.