SUDHAKAR DEORAOJI WELE Vs. COMMISSIONER NAGPUR DIVISION NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. HEARD finally with the consent of the parties. The petitions are dismissed for the reasons to follow. REASONS 1. This judgment shall dispose of these writ petitions.

(2.) IN writ petition 3000 of 1996, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur (respondent no. 1), by which the Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3-Sunil chandrakantaji Raut, whereby he has set aside the order of the Returning Officer (respondent No. 2)rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent no. 3. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 were the contesting candidates in the election to the Wardha Zilla Co-operative Milk society of which the respondent No. 2 was the returning Officer. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of both the petitioners. Sudhakar Wele and the respondent No. 3 Sunil Raut, on the ground that the societies which these two persons were representing had not complied with the conditions laid down in bye-law No. 19. 1. 5. The objections were taken to the nominations of both these persons, namely, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. It was contended before the returning Officer that the societies had not supplied the prescribed quantity of milk in three years prior to the election. It was contended before the Returning Officer that the bye-law was not applicable to the societies.

(3.) AGAINST the order of the Returning Officer, the respondent No. 3 only filed an appeal as provided in section 152a of the Co-operative societies Act. In the appeal, the petitioner was joined as a party as he was an objector to the nomination of the respondent No. 3. The commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, who is the appellate authority, allowed the said appeal holding that bye-laws Nos. 19. 1. 1 to 19. 1. 5 were complied with by the society which the respondent no. 3 had represented. Insofar as the bye-law No. 19. 1. 5, he held that those conditions were applicable only to the societies who had been the members of the district level societies at least for a period of more than one co-operative year. He pointed out that the co-operative year for the respondent No. 3 s society was yet to be commenced and since the society had not completed that period, the provision was not applicable to it at all and as such there was no question of the respondent No. 3 being disqualified on that account.