VINODKUMAR BANSAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed by the Returning Officer, Agrasen Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Yerawada, Pune (respondent No-3 herein) on 17-6-98 rejecting the nomination form of the present petitioner for election to the managing committee of Agrasen Co-operative Bank (respondent No. 4 herein) and the order dated 26-6-98 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies (Respondent No. 2 herein) confirming the order of respondent No. 3 are under challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner is member of respondent. No. 4 Bank which is Urban Co- operative Bank and is notified society under section 73-IC of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The election programme for electing the managing committee members of the respondent No. 4 Society for the tenure of 1998-2003 was declared by the Registrar and the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Returning Officer. According to the election programme, the nomination could be filed by 15-6-98; the scrutiny of nomination papers was to be done on 16-6-98 and the declaration of list of valid nominations was to be made by 16-6-98. The petitioner filed his nomination paper pursuant to the aforesaid election programme. The respondent No. 3 conducted the scrutiny of the said nomination paper on 16-6-98 and on the objection of one Shri Ashok K. Agarwal, rejected the nomination of the petitioner vide his order dated 17-6-98 on the ground that the petitioner was disqualified under bye- law No. 32 (v) of the respondent No. 4 society. The reason for holding the petitioner disqualified was that he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No, 2. Pune on 28-1-97 for the offence punishable under section 9-B (1) (b) of the Explosives Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The conviction of the petitioner under section 9-B (1) (b) of the Explosives Act by the Criminal Court was treated as an offence involving the moral turpitude by the Returning Officer under bye-law No. 32 (v) and period of six years has not lapsed since his conviction, he was held disqualified. The petitioner challenged the order dated 17-6-98 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination in appeal before Co-op. Court the but he could not succeed there, necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) IT may be noted here that during the pendency of writ petition, this Court vide order dated July 3, 1998 granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (b) as a result of which, the operation, execution and implementation of the impugned orders dated 17-6-98 and 26-6-98 were suspended and the Returning Officer was directed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of valid nomination and contesting candidates and to allow the petitioner to contest the election of the managing committee of the respondent No. 4 society. Consequent upon the interim order passed by this Court ,the petitioner contested the election and won the same. He is, thus, holding the office of director of the respondent No. 4 society subject to the decision in this writ petition.