SANGITA BALASAHEB KOKARE Vs. ALKA VIJAYRAO MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, Mr. Kumbhakoni seeks deletion of Respondent No. 8 Mr. Ajit A. Pawar from the array of parties in view of the interim order dated 2/9/2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Election Petition No. Pune/10/2007. Shri Ajit Pawar was joined as Respondent No. 10 in the Election Petition and by the aforesaid order he was deleted. This Order has attained finality and on this ground Mr. Kumbhakoni seeks deletion. Accordingly deletion of Respondent No. 8 is 29.wp9287.09 granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith in the court.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith since the Respondent No. 1 is the contesting candidate and since the notice issued on 18th November, 2009 was for final disposal, service of Rule on other Respondents except Respondent Nos. 2 and 9 is waived. Learned AGP appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 9.

(3.) A very short controversy arises in this Petition. Respondent No.1 has filed Election Petition No. 10 of 2007 under section 144T of the M.C.S. Act, 1960 before the Divisional Commissioner. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in that petition who are Petitioners herein are the 3 candidates elected from the 3 seats reserved for women in the elections of Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana which is specified Society under Section 73G of the Act. Elections of Specified Societies are governed by Chapter XIIA of the Act and the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 1971 Rules). There is no dispute that the total number of the members of the Managing Committee of the Karkahana/Cooperative Society is 26, out of which 18 are to be elected from the general category A class. One is to be elected from the Society representatives in B class and the remaining 7 are statutory reservations. The only dispute in this Petition is whether in the Election Petition filed by the Election Petitioner where she is seeking a limited relief of setting aside elections of 3 Women Candidates, then in the Election Petition all the returned candidates or all contesting candidates from all the other categories other than the 3 seats reserved for women are required to be joined as parties. This dispute revolves around the proper interpretation of Rule 75 of the 1971 Rules. According to the Petitioners, considering the nature of averments made in the Election Petition, though no relief had been sought against the elections of candidates other than the women candidates, all the contesting candidates in respect of all the categories were necessary parties. The Petitioners therefore filed an application for dismissal of the Election Petition on 18/9/2009 on the ground that all the necessary parties have not been impleaded. By the impugned order dated 8/10/2009 the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune has dismissed that application dated 18/9/2009. After quoting Rule 75, the Additional Commissioner has given the following reasons.