✦ Bombay High Court · 08 Oct 2010

Shri Rajesh Khanna v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 3638 of 2010B H MARLAPALLE, U D SALVI

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. Hence the petition is rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Judgment

Shri Rajesh Khanna V/s. ..Petitioner. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. S.D. Thokade i/b. J.B. Kocheta for petitioner. Mr. Samir Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms. Prachi Khandge i/b. M/s. M.P. Vashi & Ass. for respondent No.4. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED : 8TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. :-

1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner prayed for directions to the respondents to comply with the order dated 20/01/2007 and for appointment of administrator to take over the charge of the respondent No.4 Society. When it was subsequently noticed that the order dated 20/01/2007 was acted upon, the petitioner amended the petition and now he prays for setting aside the election of the Managing Committee held by the respondent No.4 Society. 2 wp3638-10

2.

The petitioner approached this Court earlier in Writ Petition No.3855 of 2009 and while disposing off that petition, this Court directed the Society to hold election to elect its Managing Committee within a period of three months from 31st March, 2010. This Court also made it clear that the elections shall be under the supervision of the respondent No.8 Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Pune.

3.

Mr. Sonawane, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune City-1 has filed an affidavit in reply and stated that the election for the new Managing Committee of the respondent No.4 Society was held on 03/06/2010 under the supervision of the office of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune as per the orders of this Court on 30/03/2010. The petitioner now contends that the elections held were not in keeping with the rules and they are illegal elections. If that be so, he may have the remedy to challenge the elections and not in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.

Hence the petition is rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.)

(B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 08 Oct 2010. The bench was B H MARLAPALLE, U D SALVI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 3638 of 2010). ← Search more judgments