JUDGMENT - M.S. VAIDYA, J.:---Liberty to add State as a party.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

3. Mr. E.P. Sawant, A.G.P., waives notices for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5, Mr. Jadhav for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Parundekar for respondent No. 4.

4. The petitioner is a producer member of respondent No. 3 Karkhana which is a specified society for the purposes of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The elections for the managing committee were declared on 16-6-1994 and the last date for filing the nomination papers was 22-6-1994. The date fixed for scrutiny was 23-6-1994.

5. At the time of the scrutiny, respondent No. 4 filed an objection (vide Exhibit A-, page 12) that the petitioner was a defaulter inasmuch as an amount of Rs. 3,427.25 was due to the Karkhana from him. The scrutiny was, therefore, adjourned under proviso to Rule 23(5) of the Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committees Rules, 1971 by the Returning Officer to 24-6-1994 on application. On that day, the petitioner tendered before the Returning Officer a challan from A.D.C.C. Bank, Aurangabad, showing the deposit of amount of Rs. 3,000/- in the account of the respondent No. 3 Karkhana on 24-6-1994, i.e. the adjourned date of scrutiny. The Returning Officer took a view that the relevant date for determining the disqualification on account of default under section 73-FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was 16-6-1994 and as the petitioner was a defaulter on that date, though the amount was paid on a subsequent date, he was disqualified for being elected to the managing committee. He, therefore, rejected the nomination paper filed by the petitioner.

6. The Returning Officer was present in the Court today. Mr. Eknath Sawant, the learned A.G.P., submitted that the Returning Officer has not committed any error of law inasmuch as on plain reading of section 73-FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the relevant date for determining the eligibility of the candidate was the date of filing of the nomination papers.

7. The decision of the Returning Officer was confirmed in Appeal by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 4-7-1994. Therefore, this writ petition was filed.

8. The first contention of Mr. Hon is that as per Explanation to section 73-FF(1) a notice of demand should have been served on the petitioner in order to enable the Returning Officer to categorise him as a defaulter. He submitted that no such notice was ever served upon him. In any event, his contention was that the petitioner had never received any such notice of demand. In reply to this, Mr. Jadhav and Mr. Parundekar, the learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, tendered on record a copy of the notice dated 6-4-1994 along with a copy of the register showing that the aforesaid notice was dispatched under certificate of posting on 6-4-1994. The original register from which the aforesaid extract was taken, was also placed before us for perusal and there appeared no reason to doubt that the notice was, in fact, dispatched under certificate of posting on 6-4-1994. The fact, however, remains that according to the petitioner, he has not received the notice. In law, a certificate of posting raises only a presumption to the effect that a parcel containing some communication was received by the postal authorities for dispatch under that certificate on the date on which it purports to have been received by them. It may also be presumed that in due course of business, the postal authorities had or might have had dispatched the same for delivery to the addressee on the address noted on the postal article. It may be further presumed that in the course of business, the postal authorities had or might have had caused the postal article to be delivered to the addressee. But, the law does not raise an unrebuttable presumption that such a postal article was, in due course, received by the petitioner. In the circumstances of a particular case, it may be po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document