DIGAMBER HANUMANTRAO JADHAV Vs. RANGARAO ABAJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition can be disposed of today. It is taken up for hearing. Mr. Sawant appears for respondents 1 and 2 instructed by Mr. Sakhare. Mr. Mehere appears for respondent No. 3. Mr. Sawant concedes that the rejection of the petitioners' nomination was not in order and states that if the elections are now to be held their nominations would be accepted. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) but only as far as the petitioners covered by this Writ Petition viz. petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 17 are concerned (see our previous order dated 21st November, 1985). We have already expressed our hope in another matter that the future election programme would be held directly under the aegis of the department and these directions should be conveyed by the A. G. P. to the concerned department. It is true that no rules have been framed for elections to the present society which is not a specified society. However, till the rules are framed, the department should depute an official to oversee the elections of this society under the orders of this Court. The official will be paid such emoluments as would be payable as if the society were a specified society, ft is hoped that the election programme will be expedited. We have already made observations regarding the Returning Officer using fairly strong words, and given certain directions to the department. Apart from this, we do not think any further action is required to be taken and the nomination forms which were taken charge by the Registrar (A. S.) under our previous order are directed to be returned to the society. Parties to bear their own costs of the Writ Petition. Order accordingly.