HANUMANT RAMCHANDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners challenged the order rendered hy the Returning Officer, whereby their objections to the list of voters published on 25th January, 2010 was rejected. They alleged that they were entitled to participate in the election process and could not be deprived of voting rights but their names were not included in the provisional voters list. Their objections were rejected by the Returning Officer and the representation made by them was turned down by the Assistant Registrar.

(2.) As per the provisions of Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the writ petition under Article 226 or Article 227 can be entertained by the Single Bench, if the order passed by the judicial or quasi judicial who is empowered to adjudicate under the concerned statute. Expression "concerned Statute" as used in sub Rule 4 to mean that the authority must be duly appointed under the provisions of the Statute and is given power to adjudicate.

(3.) In the present case, election programme of simple society was published. The Election Officer is appointed at the request of the co-operative society. The election is not governed by Rule 56-A nor it is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The appointment of the Election Officer is not shown to be made under particular provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act or the Rules. It appears that such appointment is only in accordance with the Bye-laws and at the request of the society. Under these circumstances, the impugned order rendered by the Returning Officer, overhauling the objections to the voters list, can not be termed as an order rendered by the judicial or quasi judicial authority and particularly one who is empowered to adjudicate under the concerned Statute. Therefore, this petition may be placed before appropriate Bench. It may be mentioned that the learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the judgment of Single Bench in Jagannath Pandharinath Rewaskar Vs. Minister of State for Co-operation, 2007 2 BCR 124. However, in the given case the question whether, the Returning Officer was appointed to function under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 in relation with specified or notified society or that it was in case of only simple society was not the matter of consideration. It appears from the discussion of paragraph No. 17 of the given judgment that the appointment of the Election Officer was admittedly under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Herein, however, it is a disputed fact. The petition, therefore, may he placed before appropriate Bench. Remove from Board.