GANGADHAR YASHWANTRAO GORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the election to the Board of Directors of Respondent No. 3 Society. The prayers, which are made by the petitioner, are as follows :

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the employee member of Respondent No. 3 Society. Respondent No. 3 declared its election programme for the election of the Board of Directors at Exhibit 'A', which shows that the programme was announced and published on 18th October 1982, which was the date fixed for publication of the voters' list. The time for the publication was given as 2 P.M. and the place given was the office of the society. Then several dates were given. The next date was 19.10.1982 and 20.10. 1982 for filing objections to the voters' list. Then the final list of the voters was to be published on 21.10.1982 at 2 P.M. along with objections having been scrutinised. 22nd and 23rd of October 1982 were the dates fixed for selling of the forms. 25th and 26th of October 1982 were fixed for the acceptance of the nomination forms. 28.10.1982 was fixed for the publication of the list of the candidates. 1st of November 1982 was fixed far scrutiny of nomination forms and for declaration of results thereof. 3rd of November 1982 was the date fixed for withdrawal of the nominations upto 2 P. M. and on the same date at 4.00 P.M. the final list of the candidates was to be published. 18th of November 1912 from 8.30 A.M. to 4 30 P. M. was the date fixed for voting, counting of votes and declaration of results. This programme is originally in Marathi and is filed at Exhibit 'A' in this writ petition. The petitioner filed the nomination paper and it appears that his nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer, who is Respondent No. 2 to this petition. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the groaad that the election programme and the publication of dates is most unsuitable as the list of the voters is incomplete and it is not properly published. It is stated that there was no sufficient time for scrutiny of the list and no proper opportunity was given to file the objections.

(3.) The petitioner has taken several grounds regarding the procedure adopted by respondent No. 3 in fixing the general body meeting and has also attacked the register of membership saying that some non-members are also made members of the society. In paragraph 15 of his petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination papers of few persons on the grounds on which they should not have been rejected. The facts set out in paragraph 15 in regard to the rejection of nomination papers in regard to some other persons are so cryptic that it is not possible to say from the reading of this paragraph that the petitioner has made out any specific grounds to challenge the rejection of nominations, although it indicates some defects.