PRADEEP YOGESHWAR NIMJE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the order dated 2nd December, 2004, passed by respondent No. 2 and it further prays for setting aside of the order dated 24-4-2003 passed by Deputy Registrar i. e. respondent No. 3 in this petition and to declare the voters list published by respondent No. 4 election officer to be null and void. The petition also contains prayer to initiate action against respondent No. 2 under Article 215 of Constitution of India for committing willfull disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and for stay of results (of election) declared in pursuance of this order by said respondent No. 2 divisional Joint Registrar.

(2.) There has been an earlier round of litigation and as such, brief history is essential. Petitioner states that annual general meeting of a co-operative housing society by name Yogeshwar co-operative housing society was held on 13-8-1999 and in election held therein petitioner was elected as Chairman of society. The last respondent who happens to be the step brother of petitioner is alleged to have illegally removed the records of society and is alleged to have shown elections on 12-8-2001 in which last respondent has shown himself elected as Chairman. As this election was recognised by Deputy Registrar (Housing) , petitioner filed Dispute No 152/2002 before Co-operative Court, nagpur under section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Society's Act, hereinafter referred to as "act". The Co-operative Court held elections of last respondent allegedly conducted on 12-8-2001 to be illegal and also elections dated 13-8-1999 in which petitioner was elected as Chairman to be illegal. The respondent No 3 was directed to hold fresh elections of Managing Committee. Last respondent filed appeal before State Co-operative Appellate Court under section 97 of Act and the Appellate Court disposed of the appeal on 15th january, 2003. Petitioner contends that the Appellate Court passed two mutually contradictory orders in relation to the annual general meeting dated 14-8-1998. By one order, proceedings of annual general meeting dated 14-8-1998 showing the elections of Managing Committee members headed by opponent No. 2 was declared illegal, improper and void. By the second orders, same was declared to be legal and proper. In view of this, petitioner has joined the said Presiding Officer of Appellate Court by name as party respondent in person in this petition, the petitioner contends that though his dispute was allowed by Co-operative Court, the last respondent continued to hold the office and managed the affairs of society to his advantage. The respondent No. 4 was appointed as election officer and a voters list as on 31st March, 2001 was prepared. Petitioner states that as on that date there was only 23 members entitled to vote and respondent No. 4 who acted hand-in-gloves with last respondent prepared voters list showing and 111 members. Petitioner therefore objected to it but his objection was rejected. He questioned it before respondent no. 3 and respondent No. 3 rejected the same on 24-4-2003. Petitioner then states that he filed revision challenging that rejection by respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 2 who refused to accept the filing and the same was therefore forwarded under certificate of posting. It appears that petitioner also approached state Government and the Government directed respondent No. 2 to decide said revision and to declare result of election thereafter. However society questioned this direction in writ petition and the Government withdrew that order. Petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition 3012/2003 and got stay. The Divisional joint Registrar in said writ petition took the plea that no such revision was ever filed and as such, there was no question of deciding the revision and writ petition should be dismissed. Respondents in that petition contended that petitioner obtained the stay orders/directions from State Government by misleading it and when this was disclosed to State Government, State Government rightly withdrew its own order. Divisional Joint Registrar had informed state Government that such revision which sought interference in election was not tenable and he had no authority to decide it. The petitioner contended that this plea of respondent No. 2 is incorrect and he relied upon a summons dated 27-5-2003 issued by his office fixing the said revision on 3 june, 2003 for hearing. This Court heard the parties and in view of disputed position. Though it fit to permit petitioner to file fresh revision before Divisional Joint registrar and said authority was directed to decide the revision on merits within two months. Stay earlier granted in Writ Petition (W. P. 3012/ 2003) was continued during pendency of revision. Petitioner accordingly filed revision before respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 has decided the same on 2nd December, 2004. Said respondent held that the matter and the grievance made by petitioner pertain to election which is cognizable by Co-operative Court and he lacked jurisdiction. He therefore dismissed the revision and that order is challenged in present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Advocate P. C. Madkholkar, for petitioner Advocate S. P. Bhandarkar for respondent No. 6, learned A. G. P. Mrs. Khade for respondents 1 to 3 Advocate Bangade for respondent No. 5. Rule, Made returnable forthwith and heard by consent.