KESHAVRAO NARAYANRAO PATIL Vs. MOTIRAM UDAYABHAN LAHANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common Judgment. We shall, however, take up for consideration writ petition No. 2171 of 1987 in terms of the Judgment in which the writ petition No. 1947 of 1987 can also be disposed of.

(2.) THE facts are that, the elections of the District Loan Committee of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited (hereinafter for short 'the Bank') were notified in June 1986. As per the election programme, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. I riled their nomination papers for election as members to the District Loan Committee on 16-9-1986. The nomination papers were scrutinised by the Election officer on 18-9-1986. An objection was raised to the nomination papers of the petitioner on the ground that he was disqualified from contesting the said election by virtue of Section 73-FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies act, 1960 (for short 'the Act' ). The said objection to his nomination papers was rejected. The nomination papers of the petitioner were thus accepted by the Election Officer. According to the petitioner, he defeated the respondent No 1 by 139 votes in the election to the District Loan Committee.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 filed an Election Petition under the provisions of Section 144-T of the Act claiming relief that the election of the petitioner to the District Loan Committee should be set aside and instead the respondent no, 1 should be declared as elected to the District Loan Committee. The petitioner by his written statement denied the allegations made against him by the respondent No. 1 in his Election Petition. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati who was empowered under Section 144-T of the Act to try the election petitions thereunder held by his order dated 10-9-1987 that the petitioner wa disqualified on the date of his election under Section 73-FF of the Act. He, therefore, set aside his election to the district Loan Committee. He, however, did not grant the declaration in favour of the respondent No. 1 that he should be deemed to be elected to the district Loan Committee. Feeling aggrieved by the order setting aside his election to the District Loan Committee, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this court ad feeling aggrieved by the order of the additional Commissioner not granting declaration in is favour that he should be deemed to be elected to the District Loan Commitee, the respondent No. 1 has preferred the writ petition No. 1947 of 1987 in this court. Both these petitions thus arise out of the same order and thus can be conveniently disposed of by this Judgment.