(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8657 OF 2009 1. Dariyawagir s/o. Daulatgir Mahant, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Dattatraya s/o. Daga Shinde, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Agriculture. Both R/o. Samode, Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dhule, District : Dhule. 4. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Adivashi Scheme), Sakri, Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule. 5. Shri P.D. Pimple, Returning Officer, Samode Adivashi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Limited at Samode, Taluka : Sakri, Distrist : Dhule. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, holding for Mr. N.D. Sonwane, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ........................ W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 8705 OF 2009 Dattatraya s/o. Raghunath Shinde, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Samode, Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dhule, District : Dhule. (3) 4. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Adivashi Scheme), Sakri, Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule. 5. Shri P.D. Pimple, Returning Officer, Samode Adivashi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Limited at Samode, Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule. .. Respondents. ......................... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.B. Anjanwatikar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. Writ Petition No. 8705/2009 is by a candidate desirous of contesting election to the post of Managing Committee Member of a village level Society, whereas Writ (4) Petition No. 8657/2009 is filed by a candidate belonging to Other Backward Class desirous to contest an election to the Managing Committee. 2. The voters' list came to be prepared on 17th April 2009 with a cut off date being 31st March 2006. After the process of election commenced, the Government directed the Societies to amend their bye-laws in conformity with the recommendations of Vaidyanath Committee. Acting in compliance with the said direction, the present Society amended its bye-laws. The Returning Officer prepared an election programme and published it on 2nd December 2009. The election programme, so published, was in accordance with the amended bye-laws, whereas the process of election prior thereto was in conformity with the old bye-laws. Having noticed a shift in the election programme midway, the Assistant Registrar directed the Returning Officer vide communication dated 10th December 2009 to complete the election programme according to the old bye-laws. It is this communication from the Assistant Registrar, the legality of which is questioned by filing the present petitions. 3. According to Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the election ought to be held in conformity with the amended bye-laws, as otherwise, a part of (5) the election programme would be null and void, being based on non-existent rules. To buttress the submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V. & P. Sangh Ltd. & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2004(3) Bom.C.R. 794) and to be precise, paragraph 4 thereof. It is contended that under Section 73B of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Government has issued a general order which contains a direction to the Societies to modify their bye-laws in conformity with the recommendations of Vaidyanath Committee and the said directions by itself would constitute the general order referable to Section 73B of the said Act and, as such, the election need to be held according to the amended bye-laws. The main difference in the conduct of the election based on old bye-laws and the amended bye-laws is that under the old bye- laws, there would not be a seat reserved for Other Backward Class, whereas there would be seat reserved for O.B.C. category under the amended bye-laws. Thus, prima facie, it appears, barring the said difference, there is not much of a difference in the two bye-laws. 4. Mr. S.K. Kadam, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4, has submitted that the election process has started in January 2009 and hence, this court ought not to interfere with the election process when the (6) actual voting is to take place on 17th January 2010. It is also pointed out that the contesting candidates are not impleaded as party respondents in these petitions and none of the respondents are, as yet, noticed in Writ Petition No. 8657/2009. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that it is doubtful, as to whether the general direction calling upon the Societies to amend the bye-laws could be said to be general order referable to Section 73B of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. He also submits that the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, which is impugned in these petitions, cannot be termed as wholly illegal, unjust and unfair, for the reason that part of the election programme was already conducted in conformity with the old bye-laws and any deviation midway would cause many difficulties. The submission, thus, is that these petitions ought not to be entertained, at this stage, and the parties need to be relegated to an alternative remedy in the form of a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, before the Cooperative Court. 5. Acting in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2002(1) Mh.L.J. 659), we decline to entertain the present petition and refuse to interfere with the election process. (7) 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions are dismissed summarily. Needless to state, that all points, raised in the present petitions, are kept open to be raised in an election petition / Dispute. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8657etc