1 WP24/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.24 OF 2011 Padma Raghunath Dhangar (Pujari) and others ...Petitioners. v/s Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Socieites, Hatkanangale, Dist. Kolhapur & Others ... Respondents. Mr. I.S. Ingale for Petitioners. Ms. P.S. Cordozo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. P.D. Paranjape for Respondent No.3. Mr. Y.S. Talkute for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17th January, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 20/12/2010. By the said order, in an inquiry which was held under section 56D, he was pleased to hold that the Petitioners were not entitled to be included in the Borrower Members Voters List and directed that these Petitioners who are 64 in number should be deleted from the 2 WP24/2011 said Voters List and transferred to the non-borrower Voters List. 3 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners submitted that after the provisional Voters List was published and when the Petitioners found that their names are not included in the Voters List, they filed Writ Petition in this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court noticed that no hearing was given to the Petitioners in the order dated 16/12/2010 in Writ Petition No.9672 of 2010 and, therefore, directed that the order be passed after giving them hearing. Accordingly, Deputy Registrar was pleased to give hearing to the Petitioners. It is firstly submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that the Petitioners are members since 2006. Secondly, he submitted that they have taken loan from the Society two years prior to the preparation of the Voters List. He submitted that, therefore, the Petitioners fall within the eligibility criteria of being members of the said Society. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited my attention to the new Rules which have come into force with effect from January, 2010. He invited my attention to the various clauses in the said new Rules and submitted that the Deputy Registrar had erred in holding that the Petitioners did not own 10R of land within the area of operation of the Society and, therefore, they were not entitled to be included in the Voters List of the Borrower members. It is submitted that the said criteria which was applied by the Deputy Registrar 3 WP24/2011 was incorrect. He submitted that by virtue of passing the said order, the Deputy Registrar had decided the eligibility criteria of the Petitioners which he was not entitled to decide. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents submitted that the election program of the Society was already declared and in view of this, this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. It is further pointed out that in the new Rules there was specific criteria laid in respect of including the names of the members in the Voters List of Borrowers and that the said criteria was that the said member should also own land admeasuring 10R in the area of operation. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners invited my attention to section 73B of the Co-operative Societies Act and also the Rules which are framed by the Society. He submitted that this was contrary to section 73B, more particularly sub-clauses 3 and 4 of the said Rules. He also invited my attention to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others1. He also invited my attention to various paragraphs of the said Judgment. He submitted that this court had held that there was no rule prohibiting exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of 1 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 543 4 WP24/2011 preparation of Voters List. Secondly, he submitted that , it was observed that the Collector cannot go into the question whether a person is entitled to be a member or not in a proceeding under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of Rule 6 and thirdly he submitted that it was held that in an inquiry under Rule 6(6), the Collector was not entitled to consider whether the member is in possession of the land within the area of operation of the Society. 6 It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Firstly, it is an admitted position that the election program has been pronounced on 16/12/2010 and election is to be held on 30/1/2011. The stage of nomination and scrutiny is also over. Ratio of the judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the case of Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case. In that case, it was observed that 97% of the members of the Society were excluded from the Voters List and their applications for registering them as voters in the final list of voters were rejected on untenable and unjustifiable grounds. In those circumstances, this Court held that power under Article 226 could be exercised in deserving cases. The normal rule, however, is that once the election process starts, this Court should not interfere while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is no doubt true that right to vote in election and to be included in the valid list of voters 5 WP24/2011 is a statutory right and it cannot be easily set aside on unjustified and illegal grounds. In the present case, however, in my view, the Deputy Registrar has, after going through the amended Rules which were brought in force in January, 2010 has held that since the Petitioners did not own minimum 10R of land in the area of operation, they could not be treated as part of Borrower Voters List. 7. In my view, there is no error of law apparent on the face of record committed by the Deputy Registrar. He has considered the objections of the Petitioners and has passed a reasoned order. Under these circumstances, therefore, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar. 8. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. If the Petitioners have remedy of filing Election Petition, they may do so and challenge the said election on the grounds which are available to them and the observations made by this Court while disposing of this Petition shall not come in the way of Petitioners if they file the Election Petition. 9. Writ Petition is disposed off. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 6 WP24/2011