1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4825 OF 2010 (Shri Vasant Dadarao Dhoke vs. District Collector, Amravati & 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. OCTOBER 26, 2010. As per earlier orders of this Court dated 01.10.2010, the matter is for final disposal. The last date for submission of nomination papers is 28.10.2010 and therefore the petition has been heard at length. Shri Khadse, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that provisions of Rule 5(2) of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 1971 Rules), do not contemplate 2/3rd majority and resolution passed by General body on 08.08.2009 vide Resolution No. 8(1) is legal and valid. He further points out that on 28.06.2010, name of the petitioner has been forwarded as representative by the Managing Committee because of powers conferred upon it as per amended Bye-law 9(31). According to him, in the wake of these two later resolutions, reliance by the Collector upon earlier resolution dated 08.08.2009 is misconceived. That resolution in favour of Respondent No. 4 was passed on 08.08.2009 by General body and those proceedings were 2 confirmed on 05.08.2010 in the next General body meeting. The confirmation does not have the effect of again sending Respondent No. 4 as representative. To substantiate his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Raosaheb Babasaheb vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 1999 (2) Mh. L.J. 367. Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 as also Shri Thakare, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 have supported the impugned order. Shri Manohar, learned counsel contends that alleged resolution of Managing Committee is dated 28.06.2010 and then a General Body meeting dated 05.08.2010. According to him, Rule 5(5) of 1971 Rules permits either General body or Managing Committee to forward the name as representative and as in this case General body has already resolved in favour of Respondent No. 4 on 08.08.2009 and exercise of changing that name has been undertaken because of express requirement of Rule 5(2), “like resolution” is necessary. He has further urged that in this situation, the provisions of Bye-law 8(36) become relevant if the subject not included in agenda was to be taken up on 05.08.2010, the motion by 2/3rd members was essential. The order of Collector expressly records a finding of absence of such motion. As society which allegedly forwarded the petitioner as representative is not party, 3 according to learned counsel, the dispute cannot be resolved in present writ petition. It is apparent that first resolution available for perusal is dated 08.08.2009 and it is passed by General body which then was authorized by Bye-laws to chose a representative for representing it on federal body. Accordingly, Respondent No. 4 was selected and his name was forwarded. The Bye-laws thereafter have undergone change and amended Bye-law 9(31) then authorized Managing Committee to elect representative. The petitioner contends that such resolution is passed on 28.06.2010. In that meeting, the petitioner appears to have been selected as representative. The third meeting as per report of Assistant Registrar is dated 05.08.2010 and it is General body meeting. In it again vide resolution No. 8(1), name of present petitioner appears to have been selected as representative. The subject, however, has been placed before the meeting with the permission of Chair. The provisions of above Bye-law 8(36) reveal that if such a subject is to be considered by General body, then it must be supported by 2/3rd members present in the said meeting. The finding of absence of said majority reached by the Collector is not demonstrated to be either erroneous or perverse. Said resolution as produced before this Court also does not make any reference to power given to Managing Committee or then to resolution dated 28.06.2010 passed by Managing 4 Committee in favour of the petitioner. If there was already resolution forwarded to competent authority in favour of Respondent No. 4, second resolution in General body in his favour was really not necessary. From records produced before this Court, it cannot be pointed out with certainty that the name of the petitioner was forwarded as representative in pursuance of the resolution of Managing Committee. I, therefore, find substance in the contention of Shri Manohar, learned counsel that some disputed questions arise and the questions could have been resolved only if the society which selected the petitioner or Respondent No. 4 as representative had been a party respondent before this Court. The said society is not party. Hence, present writ petition is dismissed leaving all contentions open for consideration before the appropriate forum. JUDGE *GS.