LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-44

MANCHAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 03, 2011
MANCHAK S/O. SHAHAJI PAWAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, COOPERATION AND TEXTILE DEPARTMENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order of respondent no.2/Election Officer, accepting nomination paper of respective respondent no.4 for the purposes of general election of respondent no.3/Co-operative Society. It is not in dispute that the said Society is registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Act of I960"). The respondent no. 1 in both the matters is the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary in Cooperation and Textile Department. The respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.251/2011 has submitted her nomination for post reserved for woman, while respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.257/2011 is contesting election for open post.

(2.) Looking to the nature of controversy and earlier orders passed, the respective Counsel have been heard finally by making Rule returnable forthwith.

(3.) Advocate, Shri. D. J. Choudhari, appearing for the petitioner, has stated that respondent no.3 is a Notified Society and scrutiny of nomination papers has been conducted on 10-1-2011. In that scrutiny, petitioner raised objection and pointed out that respondent no.4 is defaulter as contemplated by Section 73-FF(l)(i) and hence, is not eligible to contest the election. That objection has been rejected after holding payment of loan arrears effected on 8-1-2011 as valid. It is his contention, that 7-1-2011 was the last date prescribed for filing of nomination papers and hence payment made thereafter cannot have the effect of curing the status as defaulter. He has relied upon the judgment delivered by me at Nagpur Bench and in the case of Ravi Amrutrao Bagde Vs. Commissioner & others, 2006 3 BCR 359. He has further urged that unnecessarily a confusion about the nature of loan availed is being created and he points out loan disbursed to respondent no.4 is for maintenance of cotton and as per amended policy for the year 2009-10, it could have disbursed up to 31st March. 2010. It repayable by 28-5-2010.