SHIVAJI GANPATI PATIL Vs. SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition serious allegations are made against the Administrator of the Kothrud Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., who is incidentally a public servant. It is alleged that though several members filed their applications in the prescribed forms and also paid the necessary amount by 29th June, 1984, the said applications were not considered till the election programme was declared. As a result their names are not included in the voters' list. It is also alleged that in the election programme declared, the number of members to be elected was not specifically mentioned. A complaint was also made that several persons owing their allegiance to the ruling Congress (I) party were admitted as members prior to 30-6-1984 and their number is more than 100. Therefore, on these grounds it was contended by the petitioner that the voters' list prepared is manipulated to suit the candidates owing allegiance to the ruling Congress (I) party and therefore the said voters' list is illegal.

(2.) The allegations made in this petition are denied by the Administrator by filing an affidavit. According to the Administrator, some of the persons who are alleged to have applied for membership have given in writing that their applications are forged ones and do not bear their signatures, and he had already received a letter in that behalf from about 40 persons disowning their signatures. He has also stated that he has (July published a notice which clearly mentioned the number of posts to which the candidates are required to be elected. Thus, In substance the allegations made in the petition are denied.

(3.) During the course of the arguments various registers, applications and the receipts were produced before us. Therefore, it Ss quite clear that the averments made in the petition are denied by the respondents and a serious dispute is raised in that behalf. Thus, it can safely be held that this writ petition involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided unless a thorough inquiry is held and the evidence is recorded. This cannot be done in the writ jurisdiction, in aay case at this late stage, when the election programme is already declared. To resolve such disputed questions the petitioner can raise a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, which is a proper remedy. Therefore, it is not possible for us to entertain such disputed questions in our extraordinary writ jurisdiction, more so when the petitioner has got an expeditious and alternate remedy open.