Ramhari & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Operative part
Shri. Vijay A. Dhakne, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. D.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. Vilas P. Sawant, Advocate holding for Shri. K.R.Doke, for respondent No.4. -------- CORAM: MOHIT S SHAH, CJ & NARESH H PATIL, J. DATE: 27th JUNE 2012 PER COURT : 1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners are challenging order dated 22nd March 2012 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad on the objection application made on 5th January 2012 RSL 2 W.P.4857 of 2012 challenging the membership of respondent Nos.5 to 41 in respondent No.4 – Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jaywant Nagar, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad on the ground that the said respondents do not possess land within the territorial jurisdiction of the said cooperative society. All the said private respondents are included in the voters list for election of the Managing Committee of Village Local Agricultural Cooperative Society, which list was published on 27th April 2012. 2) Since the voters list has to be prepared on the basis of membership of the respective cooperative societies and since the petitioners’ challenge to the membership of the private respondents is not yet decided by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhoom, respondent No.2, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be served if the petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent No.2-Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to consider and decide the petitioners’ objection application dated 5th January 2012 (at Exhibit “B” to the petition) as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date of receipt of RSL 3 W.P.4857 of 2012 this order. We clarify that we have not gone into merits of the controversy between the parties and the respondent No.2 shall decide the representation in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the respondent Nos.5 to 41 as well as to the office bearers of the respondent No.4-Society. 3) The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE. Sd/-
(NARESH H PATIL, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 27 Jun 2012. The bench was NARESH H PATIL.
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.