JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Returning Officer on 8th October, 1998 rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 was disqualified from contesting the election for the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 2 society, being appointed as a Police Patil of Mouza Mandhal, District Bhandara by the State Government, under the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules or the Bye-laws of the society.

2. The Returning Officer negatived the objection mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 3 was not receiving salary from the State Government but was receiving honorarium and, therefore, he was not covered by any of the disqualifications.

3. In the present writ petition diverse contentions have been raised. The writ petition came to be admitted to 3rd November, 1998 and it appears that it was heard from time to time. It is at this stage, that preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that; an alternate and efficacious remedy of election petition has been provided for under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act; that the State Government was a necessary party and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; and that the decision of the Returning Officer based on the Circular issued by the State Government dated 10th May, 1998, which clarifies that Police Patil appointed by the State Government under section 5 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 would not incur any disqualification to contest the election to the Managing Committee of any Co-operative Society, has not been assailed in the present writ petition. It was thus contended that unless the validity of the said circular was challenged, which the Returning Officer had followed and in fact implemented in the present matter, the present petition cannot be entertained.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in so far as the preliminary objection regarding availability of alternate remedy a concerned, it is too late in the day to non-suit the petitioner on that ground for the simple reason that the writ petition has remained pending in this Court for over two years and it would be most inappropriate to drive the petitioner to the remedy of election petition, for even the said remedy has become time-barred, in which case no alternate or efficacious remedy can be said to be available to the petitioner in law. On the preliminary point regarding non-joinder of the State Government as a party to the present petition he contends that the Returning Officer, who has been appointed to discharge the statutory duty of conducting election to the Managing Committee of a specified society, has been impleaded and it was, therefore, not necessary to implead the State Government. Moreover, according to the learned Counsel, it is well settled that writ can be issued against the Returning Officer by this Court. With regard to the third preliminary point, learned Counsel fairly concedes that he has not challenged the validity of the circular in the present writ petition nor raised any ground regarding correctness and efficacy of the said circular. He, however, contends that there is no provision under the Co-operative Societies Act, which would enable the Desk Officer of the State Government or for that matter even the State Government to issue such a circular. In the circumstances, the said circular, in fact, has been issued without authority of law.

5. I am not inclined to non-suit the petitioner on the aforesaid preliminary objections raised by the respondents. I find force in the stand taken by the petitioner that no alternate or efficacious remedy is left to the petitioner and the petitioner should not suffer because of the intervention of this Court in admitting the writ petition as back as on 3rd November,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document