1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1251 OF 2008 Kisan Veer Satara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Ministry for Cooperation & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ajit Kenjale for petitioner Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 24 Mr.Amit Borkar with V.V.Purwant i/b. Shahaji Shinde for respondents Nos.5 to 23 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th February 2008 P.C. . Mr.Walawalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner Karkhana states that all respondents are served. Learned A.G.P. appears for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 24, Mr.Borkar appears for respondent Nos. 5 to 23. 2 2. Since all respondents are served I proceed to pass final orders on the petition. 3. Heard Mr.Walawalkar, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, A.G.P. for State and Mr.Borkar for respondent societies. 4. Perused the impugned order, copy of which has been annexed as Exh.R. The Collector Satara has informed Managing Director of Petitioner that in response to the letter dated 12th February 2008, the petitioner had requested that names of 19 societies be deleted from the final voters’ list. Upon this objection of the petitioner, a report was called for from the Regional Dy.Director of Sugar, Pune. Mr.Walawalkar submits that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court but withdrew the writ petition, because the order of the Collector directing inclusion of 19 societies in the provisional voters list was impugned. The list 3 was provisional and some proceedings before the State Government were pending. When that petition was placed before this Court, a statement was made on behalf of the respondent societies to the effect that proceedings under section 79A of the M.C.S. Act are pending before the State Government. In the light of this statement, petitioner withdrew that petition which contained objections with regard to inclusion of the names of these societies. Later on, the Authority has communicated that the dispute cannot be resolved under section 79A and, therefore, proceedings were closed. Despite no order being passed under section 79A of the M.C.S. Act in favour of these societies and at the same time holding that the proceedings were not maintainable, the Collector ought to have deleted the names of respondent Nos. 5 to 23 as their inclusion was subject to the proceedings under section 79A of M.C.S.Act, 1960. However, the collector having refused to do that, 4 petitioner has approached this Court by the present writ petition. 5. My attention is invited to para 2 of the impugned order and findings of the Joint Director. The Collector, according to Mr.Walawalkar fell in obvious error in concluding that the petitioner’s act of terminating the rights of the societies is illegal. Collector’s finding is that section 35(1) should have been resorted to before these rights were terminated. Mr.Walawalkar relies upon section 25A of the Act and contends that that is an independent provision and not dependent upon sections 29 and 35 of the Act. The petitioner having resorted to section 25A, it was not necessary to follow section 35(1) of the Act. In any event, in the light of law laid down by this Court in the case of Dhondiba Parshuram Lakade and Ors. Vs. Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, reported in 1979 Mh.L.J.311, the Collector had no authority 5 and jurisdiction to render any finding or conclusion with regard to the rights of the societies. For all these reasons, the order under challenge be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr.Borkar, learned Counsel appearing for the societies who are respondents to this petition urges that the petitioner has not resorted to the provisions of law before terminating the rights. The said termination is not binding as it is void and inoperative in law. Societies may have erroneously resorted to section 79A but the Collector has rightly clarified that he could not have gone into these disputed issues and, therefore, the order of Collector requires no interference. That would amount to interfering with the electoral process which is impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. That apart, Mr.Borkar, after taking 6 instructions from each of the respondent societies, makes a statement that these societies would now resort to proceedings under section 91(1) of the M.C.S. Act. He states that he has instructions to make a statement that within one week from today, each of these societies would file a Dispute in competent cooperative court seeking declaration of their rights and further relief that the alleged Termination by petitioner society does not bind them. He submits that in the light of this statement, this petition be disposed of. 8. Considering the fact that the Collector had earlier included names of societies subject to the orders under section 79A and those proceedings having been found to be untenable in law an opportunity is required to be given to the concerned societies to approach the cooperative court. In my view, following order would meet ends of justice. 7 (a) Statement of Mr.Borkar that the respondent societies would approach the competent cooperative court and file dispute under section 91 within one week from today is accepted. (b) In the light of this statement, the order of the Collector permitting the concerned societies (respondent Nos. 5 to 23) to vote at the ensuing elections is not disturbed but it is clarified that merely because the Collector has included the names in the final voters’ list that by no stretch of imagination confers any right of membership on these societies. Equally, the societies would be free to urge that their rights are not validly put an end to. Such and other issues are open for consideration by the cooperative court. 8 (c) The order of the Collector permitting the said societies is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner and the said societies in the dispute before Cooperative Court; (d) Needless to state that if the societies do not file the dispute within a period of one week from today, it is directed that the subject societies may be permitted to vote at the ensuing elections but their votes will be kept separately and not counted until they resort to appropriate proceedings and obtain suitable directions with regard to their membership rights. (e) Petition stands disposed of. Mr.Borkar states that the respondent societies will also seek appropriate 9 interim reliefs on or before 15th March 2008. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)