( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10336 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10499 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 10336 OF 2010 1. Jalgaon Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Limited, Jalgaon, Through its President, Shri Bhagwanrao s/o. Jagatrao Deshmukh, Age : 75 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Varangaon, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. 2. Jalgaon Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Limited, Jalgaon, Through its Vice President, Shri Virendra Rameshchandra Bhoite, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bhoite Nagar, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. ( 2 ) 3. Jalgaon Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Limited, Jalgaon, Through its Secretary and Delegate, Shri Tanaji s/o. Keshavarao Bhoite, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Legal Practitioner And Agriculture, R/o. Bhoite Nagar, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The North Maharashtra University, Umainagar, Bambhori, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon, Through its Registrar. 3. The Vice Chancellor and The appellate Authority, North Maharashtra University, Umainagar, Bambhori, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. ( 3 ) 4. Jalgaon Zilla Marathi Vidhya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon, through its Chairman, Mr. Dr. Satish Chintaman Devkar, Age : 51 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Brooke Bond Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon. 5. Jalgaon Zilla Marathi Vidhya .. Respondents Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Ltd., (Nos.4 & 5 - Jalgaon, through its Secretary, Interveners) Advocate Vijay s/o. Bhaskarrao Patil, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Legal Practitioner, R/o. 71, Dixitwadi Zilla Peth, Jalgaon, Taluka & District : Jalgaon. ....................... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5. ........................ ( 4 ) WRIT PETITION NO. 10499 OF 2010 1. Jalgaon Zillha Maratha Vidya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon, Through its Chairman, Dr. Satish s/o. Chintaman Deokar, Age : 51 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Brook Bond Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon. 2. Jalgaon Zillha Maratha Vidya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon, Through its Hon. Secretary, Vijay s/o. Bhaskarrao Patil, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Advocate, R/o. 71, Dixitwadi, Zillha Peth, Jalgaon. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The North Maharashtra University, Umavinagar, Bambhori, Jalgaon, through its Registrar. 2. The Vice Chancellor And Appellate Authority, The North Maharashtra University, Umavinagar, Bambhori, Jalgaon. ( 5 ) 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. Jalgaon Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon, Dist. : Jalgaon, Through its President, Shri Bhagwanrao s/o. Jagatrao Deshmukh, Age : 75 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Varangaon, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. 5. Jalgaon Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Vice-President, Shri Virendra s/o. Rameshchandra Bhoite, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bhoite Nagar, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. 6. Jalgaon Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Secretary and Delegate Shri Tanaji s/o. Keshavrao Bhoite, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Legal Practitioner & Agriculture, R/o. Bhoite Nagar, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ................................. ( 6 ) Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.G. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.3. Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate, for respondent nos.4, 5 and 6. ................................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. At the outset, Mr. P.R. Patil, learned Counsel, who has filed reply on behalf of respondent nos.4, 5 and 6, in Writ Petition No. 10499/2010, sought leave to correct words in paragraph 20, stating that the last line on page 8 of that reply dealing with contentions of "respondent nos.4 and 5" need to be corrected and replaced by "respondent nos.1 and 2". There is no debate between the parties about inadvertent error. The error is allowed to be corrected. 2. The challenge in both these petitions is to the order passed by the Vice Chancellor of North Maharashtra University, ( 7 ) Jalgaon, dated 29th October 2010, thereby holding that he cannot permit representative of either of the contesting groups claiming to be in management of the affairs of the institution, by name, Jalgaon Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon. He, therefore, directed parties to approach competent forum and get their entitlement adjudicated. 3. The controversy arises due to elections of Academic Council and Senate of that University and the rival groups state that name of their representative alone needs to be included in the voters' list for the said election. 4. I have heard Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10336/2010, and Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10499/2010. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel, has appeared on behalf of Institution in both the matters. Mr. A.B. Girase, learned Counsel, has argued the case on behalf of the University. Mr. P.R. Patil, learned Counsel, has appeared for respodent nos.4, 5 and 6 in Writ Petition No. 10499/2010. 5. The fact that establishment of Jalgaon Zilla Marathi Vidhya Prasarak Sahakari Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon (For short, ( 8 ) hereinafter referred to as "Institution") is registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1960"), and is also registered as a Public Trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, is not in dispute. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel, states that the elections have been duly conducted and as per notification issued under the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Act of 1960, the names of petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10336/2010 have been accepted as duly elected members of Managing Committee for the term 2008-2012. He relies upon communication dated 6-12-2007 and further asserts that, in fact, his clients are in physical management, namely, they are responsible for day-to-day affairs like appointments, terminations, operation of bank accounts and any correspondence with University. He points out that the similar claim made by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10499/2010 was not entertained on 1-12-2007 by the competent authority, namely, District Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. He also relies upon order dated 24-9-2008 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in Change Report No. 48/2003 to state that a subsequent change in the Vice President reported by his clients has been accepted to that authority. 6. His grievance is since last about 2 - 3 years, ( 9 ) representative of the petitioner in management of the Institution has been prohibited from participating in this important elections and hence this petition is required to be filed. He also invites attention to earlier orders of this Court and objection raised on behalf of the University. He points out that the order of Election Officer was questioned in those petitions and then University pointed out alternate remedy, namely, filing appeal before Vice Chancellor. Thereafter, parties approached the Vice Chancellor and Vice Chancellor refused to exercise jurisdiction in the matter. 7. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10499/2010, on the other hand, states that there is an order of Civil Court in favour of his clients and that order has attained finality. The order has been passed on 13th November 2000 and because of that order in Regular Civil Suit No. 405/2000, the plaintiff nos.1 and 2 in that suit must be treated and recognized as persons entitled to participate in election on behalf of the Institution. He points out that the rival group was / is party / defendant in the suit and hence that adjudication is binding upon them. The representatives of those plaintiffs were accordingly permitted to participate in the election proceedings once. Thereafter, in two subsequent tenures, participation could not materialize because of various ( 10 ) court litigation. He has pointed out that said group has filed Change Report Nos. 47/2003 and 143/2008, while the other group has filed Change Report Nos. 49/2003 and 96/2008 All these four Change Reports are still pending. 8. He urges that in the absence of any declaration to the contrary by any other authority, the orders of Civil Court dated 13th November 2000 must be honoured and those plaintiffs / applicants must be permitted to vote in the election, as already directed. This order was binding on Vice Chancellor and Vice Chancellor, therefore, could not have ignored it. 9. Mr. P.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.4, 5 and 6, in Writ Petition No. 10499/2010, has supported the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10336/2010. He states that those petitioners are administering the affairs of the Institution. 10. Mr. A.B. Girase, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent / University, has invited attention to the provisions of Section 2, Sub-Section 20 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "1994 Act"), to urge that the Managing Committee of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act or then body in Schedule-I, in so far ( 11 ) as provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act are concerned, is recognized therein as management. He has also urged that a conflicting situation was placed before the Vice Chancellor for consideration. According to him, the Institution claims to be governed both by the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and also by the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. An Election Officer functioning for the limited purpose under the 1994 Act, is not expected to decide such controversy and in an appeal upon his decision, Vice Chancellor also cannot adjudicate that controversy finally. He states that there are about 170 colleges / managements affiliated to University and voters' list is required to be drawn from these colleges. The Senate consists of 102 members. According to him, non-participation by any one person in such process is not going to adversely affect the election. He, therefore, states that the order passed by the Vice Chancellor need to be maintained. 11. Perusal of the bye-laws of the Institution, as approved on 15-3-1984 shows that its Clause No.36 clearly stipulates that though the bye-laws may contain any provision, still in relation to matters not regulated by it, or in case of doubt or dispute, provisions of the Act of 1960 and Rules made thereunder shall prevail. It is, therefore, obvious that by these bye-laws which the rival managements have to accept, prima facie primacy has ( 12 ) been given to the Act of 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. These bye-laws are accepted by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon. 12. The provisions of Section 2(20) of the Maharashtra Universities Act do not recognize Managing Committee of a Cooperative Society, as management. The reference therein is expressly to a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act or then to a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Institution before this Court is not registered under the Societies Registration Act. The scheme or constitution approved under the Bombay Public Trusts Act is not produced before this Court. In the absence of that document, even the provisions of above mentioned Bye-law No.36 or its implication cannot be ascertained and appreciated. 13. The impugned order is passed by the Vice Chancellor. The Election Officer functioning and taking decision about inclusion of the name of a person in voters' list cannot be expected to decide such controversy. The Vice Chancellor before whom appeal lies against his adjudication, also, therefore, cannot look into such niceties. 14. It is no doubt, true that there is an interim order ( 13 ) passed by the Civil Court which is alleged to be still holding the field but then that order was passed in the year 2000 and after that order, the plaintiffs therein (Petitioners in W.P. No. 10499/2010) have filed two Change Reports i.e. Change Report Nos. 47/2003 and Change Report No. 143/2008. Not only this, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10336/2010 have also filed Change Report No. 49/2003 and Change Report No. 96/2008. Admittedly, those interim directions were obeyed only for the purposes of one election and thereafter could not be implemented in later two elections. In view of subsequent Change Reports filed by rival groups and these developments, it is apparent that the said order cannot be held to be either decisive or in force at this stage. 15. As already noted above, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10336/2010 claim to be in actual management and they are also relying upon the order of the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dated 6-12-2007, accepting their election and issuing a notification under Section 73(3) of the Act of 1960 in their favour. The very same authority has rejected similar request made by other group on 7-12-2007. A Change Report submitted by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10336/2010 has been accepted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 24-9-2008. But then 1994 Act does not ( 14 ) recognize this position. 16. The facts, therefore, clearly show that unless and until all Change Reports are adjudicated upon by the competent authority, the person legally entitled to manage the affairs cannot be ascertained. The persons actually in management also may not be entitled to inclusion of name of their representative in voters' list because the provisions of Section 2(20) of the Maharashtra Universities Act do not give any importance or recognition to elections under Section 73(3) of the Act of 1960. 17. The Institution has gone unrepresented in last two elections and except the fact that it has gone so, no other prejudice is being pointed out by the Institution or by any rival group. Looking to the large number of colleges / managements affiliated to University, size of voters' list and size of Senate, it is apparent that non-inclusion of one name only is not going to affect them adversely. The dispute between rival group and the Institution is not sufficient to withhold the entire election process. 18. In view of these considerations, I find that interest of justice can be met with, by directing the Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide all Change Reports pending before him ( 15 ) as early as possible and in any case, within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to it. 19. In the result, the impugned order passed by the Vice Chancellor on 29-10-2010 is upheld. The election of University is permitted to proceed further and after the Change Report is accepted, the management recognized as per provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act can forward the name of its representative for further participation in accordance with law. 20. The petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of above observations. No costs. 21. Mr. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10336/2010, makes a request that the interim order, already operating, should be continued for a period of two weeks from today. Mr. Girase, learned Counsel appearing for the University, is opposing the request. Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 in the said petition, has got no say to offer. 22. After hearing Mr. Girase, I find that even if election process begins today, it cannot be completed within a period of 30 days. Hence by not granting stay, no prejudice is caused to ( 16 ) the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10336/2010. The request is, therefore, rejected. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/10336wpetc