KRISHNAKANT DURLABHBHAI VORA Vs. MATHURADAS R GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election for the posts of Chairman and Directors of Respondent No. 13 Bank were held on 29th April 1991. The result of the election was declared on 30th April, 1991. The appellant was the contestant for the post of Chairman and respondents No. 1 to 10 were amongst the contestants for the posts of Directors along with three other persons Respondent No. 1, hereinafter "called "the disputant filed a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "the Act, in the Co-operative Court at Bombay, challenging the election of the Appellant and respondents No. 2 to 10. In the proceeding, the Disputant filed an interim application for the appointment of a Receiver / Commissioner to take charge of the papers to the disputed election, including the ballot papers, used and unused, ballot boxes, documents recording election results, counter-foils of ballot papers, Register of Members and papers containing specimen signatures of Members of Respondent No. 13 Bank. He also prayed for the grant of inspection of all documents and, more particularly, of the counter-foils of ballot papers. The Co-operative Court appointed and Advocate as Court Receiver and authorised him, inter alia, to grant inspection of the counter-foils of the ballot papers to the Disputant. In Appeal, the Co-operative Appellate Court slightly modified the said order. Against the said decision, the Appellant filed the Writ Petition out of which the present Appeal arises. The learned Single judge modified the Order under Appeal and confined the authority to grant inspection only to the counter foils of the used ballot papers. Hence the present Appeal.

(2.) AN interesting point was raised by Mr. Ajit P. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, by way of a preliminary objection, that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable, because, firstly the writ petition was expressly filed under Article 227 and, many case, the facts did not justify the invoking of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and, secondly, three is no judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent conferring a right of appeal thereunder. We do not propose to go into these questions, since, in our opinion, in the present case, even assuming that the appeal lies under Clause 15 against the impugned decision, there is no substance in the Appeal.

(3.) RULE 56a-32 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, deals with the production and inspection of election papers. It reads as follow: 56a-32 Production and inspection of election papers