Dismissed

Shri. Ranjankumar Shankarrao Taware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Feb 2015WP/1789/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought mandamus to quash the final voters' list and direct preparation in accordance with specific sections of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Court observed that since the election programme was declared, interference was not warranted at this stage. The petition was dismissed, and directions to seek an alternate remedy were given after the election.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to resort to alternate remedy after election is over. No opinion expressed on merits.

Shri. Ranjankumar Shankarrao Taware Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

9-wp-1789-15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1789 OF 2015

¶5

Shri Rajankumar Shankarrao Taware ....Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr. A.V.Anturkar, Sr. Counsel with Mr.Dormaan J. Dalal i/by Mr.S.B.Deshmukh, advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. A.B.Vagyani Government Pleader with Mr. P.G.Sawant, AGP for the respondent-State.

¶8

Mr. S.U.Kamdar, Sr. Counsel i/by J. Shekhar & Co., advocate for the respondent no.4.

¶9

CORAM : SHRI NARESH H. PATIL & SHRI A.S.GADKARI, JJ.

¶10

DATED : February 23, 2015.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard.

¶13

2 The petitioner, the Director of the respondent no.4 seeks mandamus of this Court to the respondents for quashing and setting aside the final voters' list published by the respondents on 12.2.2015 for conducting the election of the respondent no.4. The petitioner further

¶14

prays for direction to the respondents to prepare the final voters' list in accordance with the provisions of Section 27(10) read with Section 73CA of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961) and for other

Shivgan 1/5

9-wp-1789-15

consequential reliefs.

¶19

3 The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the amended provisions of Section 26 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 drafted in English and are not in consonance as there is variance in Marathi version of the rules relating to the provisions of Section 26 drafted in English. It is the submission of the learned counsel that under the amended provisions of Section 26, the last proviso reads as under:

¶20

Section 26. Rights and duties of members

¶21

Provided also that, in any election conducted immediately after the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2013, all the existing members of the society shall be eligible for voting, unless otherwise ineligible to vote.

¶22

The Marathi version reads as under:

¶23

ßijarq vlsgh dh] egkjk"Vª lgdkjh laLFkk ¼lq/kkj.kk½ v/;kns'k] 2013 ;kP;k izkjaHkkP;k yxruarj ?ks.;kr ;s.kkÚ;k dks.kR;kgh fuoM.kqdhr] R;k laLFksps loZ fo|eku lnL;] R;kauk ernku dj.;klkBh vU;Fkk vik«k ?kksf”kr dsys ulsy rj] ernku dj.;klkBh ik«k Bjrhy-Þ

Shivgan 2/5

9-wp-1789-15

4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the English version of the amended provisions of the Act would prevail. Reliance is placed on the following judgments in support of his submission.

¶28

1 Shivajirao Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 Vol111(3) Bom.L.R.1359.

¶29

2 Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1997 (Supp) Bom.C.R.203

¶30

3 Karbhari Maruti Agawan and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1995(1)Bom. C.R.596

¶31

4 Eknath Ashiram Alekar and Ors. Vs. The state of Maharashtra and Ors. 1989(3)Bom.C.R.165

¶32

5 Shri Sant Sadguru Janardhan Swami and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2001(8)SCC 509

¶33

6 Pundalik Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others 2005(7)SCC 181.

¶34

7 Ahmednagar Zilla SDS.D.V and P Son Ltd. And Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2004(1)SCC 133.

¶35

8 Bapur Maruti Rakshe and Other Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2007(3)Bom.C.R.615.

¶36

5 It was further submitted that without disturbing election

¶37

programme, necessary directions could be given as the petitioner does not have an alternate efficacious remedy to be resorted to after the

Shivgan 3/5

9-wp-1789-15

elections are over.

6 The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the petition is not maintainable at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the election is already set in motion. The learned counsel submits that the judgments cited in support of the interpretation on the issue of English and Marathi version of the concerned law are not applicable to the present set of facts and circumstances. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the provisions of the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner may resort to an alternate efficacious remedy after the election is over.

¶43

7 The Government Pleader submitted that the election programme is declared. We have perused the record and the judgments cited (supra).

¶44

8 The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.4 has also placed on record documents in support of the submission that the election programme is declared. Nomination papers are to be submitted between 27^th and 28^th February, 2015.

Shivgan 4/5

9-wp-1789-15

9 The issues as to whether members enrolled by respondent no.4 are eligible to vote in the election, whether members are qualified or not to participate in the election process would require some investigation and enquiry into the facts, record. As the election programme is already declared, in the facts we observe that interference at this stage is not warranted. Which version of the subject law English or Marathi would prevail is also a question raised before us. At this stage we do not find it appropriate to address these issues. If advised, the petitioner may resort to alternate remedy as permissible in law after the election is over. We do not express any opinion on the same.

¶49

10 Keeping all issues on merits raised in this petition open, we dismiss the petition.

¶50

( A.S.GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶51

Shivgan 5/5

Shri. Ranjankumar Shankarrao Taware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ranjankumar Shankarrao Taware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Mr. Amol Ashok Vengurlekar and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

B.B. Sirpor Vs Chief Security Commissioner and Ors.

Deelip Purushottam Rajurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Egs and Water Conservation and Ors.

Mali Anusaya Baban and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Shaikh Imran Latif and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Yashwant Devsing Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Tahsildar and Ors.