TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order passed by the Returning Officer by presenting the appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in view of the provisions of Section 152(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The said appeal was dismissed. As such, the relevant order was challenged in the instant petition. It appears that the appellant has not challenged that order of rejecting nomination paper. The petition of respondent No. 1 came before this Court (Single Bench) for admission on 12-12-2007. The Court passed following order. Notice returnable 4 weeks. Shri. Shinde, learned AGP waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. By way of ad interim orders, it is directed that the nomination paper of the petitioner be accepted. 4. The Returning Officer was directed as an interim relief to accept nomination paper of petitioner i.e. respondent No. 1. It seems that the Returning Officer after accepting that nomination paper, proceeded to declare the result as there was no other contesting candidate in-fray, the said action was taken in view of the provisions of Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Specif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be construed as a finding on the merits of the matter. 6. Writ Petition No. 7251/2007 was then heard by learned Single Judge and order impugned in this L.P.A. came to be passed on 21-08-2008. 7. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order, mainly found that order passed by the Returning Officer dated 15-12-2007, could not have been passed by him as respondent No. 1 came to be declared as elected unopposed, for there was only one candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 was the only candidate whose nomination paper was accepted though, as per interim relief in the writ petition. He found further that the declaration was made in pursuance to the provisions of Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 and prior to the recall of the order by the learned Single Judge dated 13-12-2007. Learned Single Judge further held that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the earlier L.P.A., found that order of the learned Single Judge had merged into the order of status quo passed by the learned Vacation Judge. Therefore, according to the learned Single Judge, the order dated 15-12-2007 by the Returning Officer could not have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this is a fit case to order restitution and restoration of the original position as it was on the date prior to passing of the interim order dated 12-12-2007 and therefore, in his submission, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of this Court is not in accordance with the provisions of law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the appellant as he was Intervenor in the proceedings of the Writ Petition in which the impugned order was passed, is not entitled to file this L.P.A. He has in fact no locus standi to file an appeal. His remedy if at all it is there, is by way of filing Election Petition before the appropriate authorities. According to him, direction was to accept nomination of the respondent No. 1 as an interim relief on 12-12-2007. Accordingly, his nomination was accepted and in view of Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules, the Returning Officer had no option but to declare him as elected as there was only one candidate whose nomination was accepted. He had to declare result of the election forthwith and therefore, there was no question of postponing of declaration of result of the said election for any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red while deciding relevant writ petition. Merely because he claims to be aggrieved the same will not be sufficient to maintain the present appeal. In our considered view, in a case where intervenor is not directly affected by the order of the court and when he is not a party to the proceedings, he cannot be held to be entitled to file substantive appeal to challenge any judgment or order. In this view of the matter, this L.P.A. has to be rejected. 13. Even otherwise, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is difficult to disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge for the reasons we indicate below. 14. At this stage, it is necessary to notice the relevant election programme. It seems that the last date for withdrawal of the nomination was 12-12-2007. In case of appeal, the last date of withdrawal was to be 19-12-2007. The learned Single Judge has passed order of ad interim relief on 12-12-2007, because of which, the nomination of respondent No. 1 was accepted and there was only one candidate in the field. There was no appeal pending. 15. At this stage, the provisions of Rule 30 need to be seen. Relevant Rule 30 reads thus: 30. Uncontested elections: If....