•
PRAKASH MAROTIRAO SHERE
A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 17, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
B
Election:
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Election Committee Rules, 1971:
Competent Authority to conduct election-Till new Committee takes C
over, Administrator to continue-Directions issued.
In this appeal against the Bombay High Court's Judgment, this
Court directed the State Government to appoint an Administrator.
Now, disposing of the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Pursuant to this Court's observations, election process
was set in motion. Objections to the preliminary voters list are to be .
considered November 18, 1995 and thereafter, depending on the order to
be passed, the competent authority required to finalise the voters list on
or before December 30, 1995. It is required to notify the election process
on or before January 2, 1996 under Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Coopera-
tive Societies Election Committee Rules, 1971. The entire process of elec-
tion is to be completed within a period of 45 days. [470-C-D}
2. The competent authority would continue the election process
schedule hereinbefore mentioned and would conduct the election of the
Society as expeditiously as possible without any delay unless he is prevented
by any order of the Court or the authorities in that behalf. [ 470-E]
3. The administrator would continue in office till the elections are
D
E
F
over and the elected committee takes over the management. [ 470-F]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11532 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.95 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 2009of1995.
H
471
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
Dushyant Dave, Bhimrao Naik, S.K. Dholakia, K. Madhava Reddy,
P.P. Rao, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, S.V. Deshpande, D.M. Nargolkar and P.R.
Gupta for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
Leave granted.
c
D
E
G
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. By our order dated
October 30, 1995, we directed the Government to appoint an administrator.
We are informed that pursuant to the said order, the administrator came
to be appointed and he too~ charge on 1st November, 1995. We are also
informed that pursuant to our observations, election process was set in
motion. Objections to the preliminary voters list are to be considered by
tomorrow and thereafter, depending on the order to be passed, the com-
petent authority required to finalise the voters list on or before December
30, 1995. It is required to notify the election process on or before January
2, 1996 under Rule 1l of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Election
Committee Rules, 1971. The entire process of election is to be completed
within a period of 45 days.
We hope and trust that the competent authority would continue the
election process schedule hereinbefore mentioned and would conduct the
election of the Society as expeditiously as possible without any delay unless
he is prevented by any order of the Court or the authorities in that behalf.
The administrator would continue in office till the elections are over
and the elected committee takes over the management.
Shri Dushyant Dave, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants seeks to contend the correctness of the action taken against
them on several legal grounds. Since the administrator has already been
appointed, we are of the view that the issut<s raised have become academic.
Therefore, we are not expressing any opinion on merits.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex