1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5329 OF 2010 (Praveen A. Mankar & Ors. vs. District Deputy Registrar, Coop. Societies & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2010 (Ashish Chandrashekhar Deshmukh & Ors. vs. District Deputy Registrar, Coop. Societies & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 29, 2010. Heard Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Fulzele and Shri Sonare, learned AGPs for respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 in respective writ petitions. This Court has issued notice for final disposal and though all respondents are served before 25.11.2010, the learned AGPs have only appeared in both matters. In Writ Petition No. 5330 of 2010, the learned AGP has filed reply on behalf of Respondents No. 3 & 4. The contention of Shri Ghare, learned counsel is, while exercising jurisdiction under Rule 5(2) of Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971, the Collector cannot examine the validity or otherwise of the resolution and the assistance received from the Cooperative department needs to be looked into. If any party is aggrieved by the 2 resolution, it has to challenge that resolution before the Competent forum i.e. Cooperative Court. Shri Ghare, learned counsel points out that in Writ Petition No. 5329 of 2010, there is a resolution in favour of the petitioner on 12.08.2010 and ignoring that resolution, name of the petitioner has been deleted by Respondent No. 3 on 18.09.2010 by impugned order. Because of that order, name of Respondent No. 5 is sought to be added/ substituted as representative of Respondent No. 2 – society. The office of Respondent No. 3 sought opinion from the District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies and that recommendation is in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 5 challenged that recommendation by filing Revision No. 59 of 2010 before the Divisional Joint Registrar and that revision was dismissed as not maintainable. In spite of this, name of the petitioner has been deleted. Shri Fulzele, learned AGP states that name of Respondent No. 5 is approved as representative of Respondent No. 2 on 04.08.2009 for a period of two years and there is no specific change therein on 12.08.2010. The learned AGP, therefore, states that appreciation of controversy by Respondent No. 4 is proper and this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. It is apparent that Divisional Joint Registrar has found that Resolution dated 12.08.2008 has been passed by Respondent No. 2 – society and by it present 3 petitioner has been selected as representative. In view of this resolution of Annual General Body meeting, the Collector ought to have retained the name of the petitioner and could not have deleted it by accepting objection of Respondent No. 5. The Resolution of Respondent No. 5 is old one i.e. of previous year. The records also show that on 20.09.2010, 1/5th of the members of Respondent No. 2 – society have submitted a requisition to Respondent No. 2 for holding Special General Body meeting on the subject and though the period of more than month has expired, that meeting has not been conducted. Respondent No. 1 has also thereafter not taken any steps to hold such meeting as contemplated by Section 76(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. As I find that the Competent authority of Cooperative department has recommended the case of the petitioner, whose name was already appearing in voters list and there was resolution dated 12.08.2010 in his favour, deletion of his name cannot be sustained. Respondent No. 4 has acted in excess of authority available to it. The said order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The name of petitioner No. 1 is restored back to the list of voters as representative of Respondent No.2 - Society. Writ Petition No. 5329 of 2010 is accordingly allowed. In view of the orders passed above, no detailed arguments in Writ Petition No. 5330 of 2010 is 4 necessary. There also requisition for holding Special General Body meeting has been submitted and no steps have been taken thereafter till date. However, Shri Sonare, learned AGP has pointed out that the name of Respondent No. 5 therein has been again approved by General Body meeting held on 08.08.2010. Shri Ghare, learned counsel has pointed out that in the very same General Body Meeting, vide resolution No. 6, name of the petitioner is forwarded as representative and vide resolution No. 6-B, name of Respondent No. 5 has been cancelled. Shri Sonare, learned AGP has stated that the resolution is signed only by the Secretary at its end and place left for the signature of the President is left blank. The passing of resolution dated 08.08.2010 is not in dispute at this stage. Vide resolution No. 1, the proceedings of Annual General Body Meeting dated 02.08.2009 have been confirmed but that does not mean that on 02.08.2009, Respondent No. 5 has been again sent as representative. The selection of representative is vide Resolution No. 6. The validity of that resolution has not been questioned before the competent forum. In the circumstances, deletion of name of Petitioner No. 1 from Voters list is again found to be unsustainable. His name is restored back to the voters list as representative of Respondent No. 2 – society. Writ Petition No. 5330 of 2010 is allowed. 5 Rule is made absolute in both the petitions accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.