The court emphasized the importance of purity and sanctity of the election process and the circumstances under which the court can interfere in the election process.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. R. L. Khapre, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. R. Rode, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent 1/State, Mr. S. S. Ghate, the learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 2 (a) and Mr. U. K. Bisen, the learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 3 (a).

2. The election to the Managing Committee of respondent 3 - Multipurpose Executive Cooperative Society (Society) is declared. Even as on the day of filing of the petition, the election process had commenced. During the pendency of the petition the election process has significantly progressed and the stage of acceptance of nomination form is over.

3. The challenge in the petition is to three decisions of the District Election Officer whereby the names of 50 persons, who were excluded in the provisional voters list, are included in the final voter list, the objection that the names of 71 persons, though shown and recorded in the register of members, are not included in the provisional voters list, is rejected, and as is rejected the objection that 33 persons who are included in the provisional voters list are not eligible to vote since they are inactive members, and are declared as such by the Society.

4. The preparation of voters list is held an integral albeit intermediate stage of the election process and it is indubitable that even as on the date of the presentation of the petition the election process had commenced. I am conscious of the plethora of decisions which articulate that the scope to interfere in the election process which has commenced is extremely limited. While there is no constitutional fetter or embargo akin to Articles 243-O or 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, the jurisprudential logic is that ordinarily the election process must be permitted to proceed notwithstanding a challenge here and there to the stages thereof or the decisions of the authority particularly since the grievance can be redressed in election petition, if the grievance survives. However, there is no inflexible rule or principle which precludes the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to interfere with the election process, if what is at stake is the purity and sanctity of the election process. The territory may be ordinarily avoidable, is not certainly forbidden.

5. I need not burden this order by catena of decisions which deal with the scope of interference with the election process in writ jurisdiction. Reference may be fruitfully made to a relatively recent decision of the Division Bench in Dattatray Ganaba Lole and Ors. v. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4578 which, while articulating that ordinarily interference in election process which has commenced must be shunned, a patently and demonstrably illegal order or action can be interdicted in writ jurisdiction. It would be apposite to note the following observations of the Division Bench in Dattatraya Ganaba Lole supra:

"45. The legal principles that emerge from the various judgments noted and discussed in detail below is that as a matter of principle, Courts have been reluctant to interfere at an intermediate stage of an election process. It has been held that every allegation of illegality or irregularity and every assertion of rights by persons being excluded from the voters list are not entertained by Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the intermediate stage of the election process. There is a strong public policy reason behind Courts being circumspect in entertaining challenges at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is because there is a vital public interest in the elections being completed after which various matters can be gone into. A liberal approach to interference at the intermediate stage would frequently result in election processes being halted or becoming uncertain, which by itself undermines the sanctity of such elections and the democratic object that they seek to achi