INDRANATH RAOSAHEB THORAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for respective parties and rule is made retunable forthwith, by mutual consent.

(2.) The Petitioner has approached this court with a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus or directions in the nature of mandamus, thereby seeking cancellation of appointment of Respondent no. 5 as returning officer and also for quashing and setting aside the election programme declared by respondent No. 5, of Respondent No. 6-Society. Further directions are sought to Respondent no. 4 Registrar (cooperative societies) to appoint an administrator for Respondent No. 6- Society. As is evident from name, Respondent no. 6 is a supervisory union and a co-operative society. According to the petitioner, the term of the present managing committee of respondent No. 6 has come to an end on 3. 4. 2006. The managing committee is empowered to appoint returning officer for the purpose of holding elections of the next managing committee, three months before expiry of its term and, therefore, according to the petitioner, Respondent No. 6 ought to have appointed returning officer on or before 3. 1. 2006. The existing managing committee appointed the returning officer by its resolution, only on 15. 5. 2006, which is clearly in breach of the rule applicable and, therefore, appointment of Respondent No. 5, as returning officer, is said to be illegal and void-ab-initio. The said appointment was also approved by respondent No. 4-Assistant Registrar. But, once the managing committee had failed to appoint the returning officer, at least three months before expiry of its term, according to the petitioner; the only course available under the rules is that of appointment of returning officer by the Assistant Registrar and mere approval by Assistant Registrar to the returning officer appointed by managing committee by its resolution dated 15. 5. 2006, does not remove the defect in the appointment of Respondent no. 5 as returning officer. It is also alleged that respondent no. 5 is friend and supporter of chairman i. e. Respondent No. 8. In order to support the allegation that respondent No. 5 is not an impartial returning officer, it is pointed out that the chairman himself prepared the provisional voters' list, although as per rule 5 of the Election Rules, applicable, it is the duty of the Executive officer-cum-Member Secretary, i. e. Assistant registrar to prepare such voters list. The names of as many as 15 societies, which are not supporting present managing committee are dropped from the provisional voters' list, although they are situated in the area of operation of Respondent No. 6-Society. As against it, 28 member societies which are not within the area of operation (as a result of carving out revenue taluka Rahata of some villages from revenue talukas of Shrirampur and Kopargaon each) are included in the provisional voters' list. The mandatory time limit of 30 days for calling names of representatives of member societies, is violated, by the chairman himself, undertaking the exercise of inviting resolutions regarding nominations from the member-societies and that too within a period less than 30 days. In fact, it is the duty of the Executive Officer-cum-Member Secretary i. e. Assistant Registrar (Cooperative Societies) to undertake such responsibility. It is also alleged that adequate publicity is not given to election programme and thus returning officer is acting at the behest of the outgoing chairman. It is also said that the assistant Registrar, who is supposed to be watch-dog of implementation of provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short,"the said Act") , is also acting as a tool in the hands of outgoing managing committee, because he is continued at Shrirampur for five years under political patronage. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashment of appointment of Respondent No. 5 as returning officer, also schedule of election as fixed by him and for appointment of an administrator of Respondent No. 6, since the term of the existing managing committee has come to an end.

(3.) Separate replies are filed on record, by Respondent Nos. 4 and 8. In fact, affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 4 is filed by Assistant Registrar (Cooperative Societies) Rahuri, who is holding additional charge of assistant Registrar (cooperative societies) , shrirampur. In fact, Assistant Registrar (co-operative societies) , Shrirampur is impleaded as Respondent No. 7 in his personal capacity, as well. However, no reply is filed by him in his personal capacity.