1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8099 OF 2009 Alubai Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit .. Petitioner. Vs. 1.Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8102 OF 2009 Jananidevi Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit .. Petitioner. Vs. 1.Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8103 OF 2009 Ramkrushna Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit .. Petitioner. Vs. 1.Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8107 OF 2009 Beljai Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit .. Petitioner. Vs. 1.Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8116 OF 2009 Padmavati Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit .. Petitioner. Vs. 2 1.Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8118 OF 2009 Sant Tukaram Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit .. Petitioner. Vs. 1.Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Counsel i/b P.S.Dani for the petitioners. Mrs.Manisha Shekhar i/b J.Shekhar & Co. for respondent no.1. Mr.S.N.Patil AGP for respondent nos.2 to 4. Coram : D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 ORAL ORDER: . Heard Mr.Walawalkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Manisha Shekhar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr.Patil, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 to 4. 2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have taken exception to the orders, all dated 10.9.2009, passed on the applications filed by the petitioners under Rule 6(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Election to the Committee Members of Specified Societies Rules, 1971 (for short “the 3 Rules”). Their applications were rejected by separate orders on similar grounds and hence these petitions are being disposed of by common order. 3. The petitioners are the co-operative societies registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”). Respondent No.1 is a federal society and it is also a society within the meaning of section 73-G of the Act. The final voters list of respondent no.1 – society for its ensuing managing committee elections was published, in which, names of the present petitioners did not figure. The petitioners, therefore, on 25.8.2009 made an applications under rule 6(5) of the rules seeking inclusion of their names in the voters list. Respondent No.2 – Collector rejected their applications holding that the petitioners names from the membership register were removed by respondent no.1 – society by passing the resolution dated 24.6.2006, and that the petitioners never challenge the said resolution/decision of the society. Respondent no.1 – society had removed the petitioners’ names from the membership register on the ground that the orders for winding up under section 102 of the Act against all the petitioner- societies were passed and as a result thereof they ceased to be the members of the respondent - federal society. 4. There is no dispute that separate orders of liquidation under section 102 of the Act against all the petitioner-societies 4 were passed in 2006. In the four writ petitions, the interim orders, as contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 102 of the Act, were passed on 27.3.2006 and the final orders under sub- section (2) thereof was passed on 16.6.2006. In the remaining two petitions, the orders of liquidation were passed in 2002. All the petitioner-societies challenged the orders of liquidation passed under section 102 by way of revision applications on 20.7.2009. The revisions were allowed and the orders of liquidation passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dairy, were set aside by the orders dated 24.8.2009. It is on the basis of these orders the petitioners filed the applications under rule 6(5) of the rules seeking inclusion of their names in the voters list. 5. Mr.Walawalkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners after taking me through sections 21, 25, 25(A), 105(2), 108, 109 and the relevant bye-laws, submitted that the collector did not consider these provisions in proper perspective and that his decision is based on totally irrelevant considerations. My specific attention was invited to rules 6(5), 6(6) and 7 to contend that the Collector did not follow the due procedure, namely, forwarding their applications within three days to the Deputy Registrar for inquiry, which is mandatory in nature, and has wrongly rejected their applications holding that the petitioners were not members of the society as on 30th day of June, 2009. 5 In short, he submitted that the Collector ought to have examined as to whether removal of the petitioners’ names from the membership register was legal. 6. I have perused all the provisions relied upon by Mr.Walawalkar. These provisions, basically provide a procedure required to be followed for cancellation of registration, cessation of membership, removal of names of the members from membership register, powers of liquidator, termination of liquidation proceedings etc. Even if it is assumed that the due procedure contemplated by these provisions was not followed, in my opinion, that cannot be examined in the inquiry contemplated by Rule 6(5) and (6) of the Rules. 7. The Collector under Rule 6(5) is obliged to deal with an application of any person, who, as on the 30th day of June of the year immediately preceding the year in which the election is due, is a member of the society and whose name is not included in the final list of voters prepared under rule (4), and who apply for inclusion of his name in the voters list within a period of fifteen days from the date of display of final list of voters under rule 7. Admittedly, names of all the petitioner-societies were removed from the membership register by the respondent- society by passing the resolution dated 24.6.2006 and, in view thereof the petitioner-societies were not members of the respondent-society as on 30th day of June, 2009. The 6 petitioners, till this date have not challenged the resolution passed by the respondent-society dated 24.6.2006 by which their names were removed from the register of its members. Even if it is assumed that the resolution dated 24.6.2006 was wrong or illegal, unless it is set aside by appropriate authority/court the resolution/decision is binding on all the concerned. 8. It is, thus, clear that a person who is a member of the society as on the 30th day of June immediately preceding the year, in which election process is issued and whose name is not included in the final list of voters prepared by the collector and who is desirous of being registered as a voter, alone can apply in writing to the collector within a period of 15 days from the date of display of final list of voters under rule 7. In other words, unless the applicant is a member of the society he cannot seek inclusion of his name in the voters list. The Collector while dealing with an application under rule 6(5) of the rules, in my opinion, can deal with the same only if the person applying is a member of the society. The Collector has no jurisdiction to consider the issue whether removal of names of members from membership register, as it happened in the present case, was legal. In the present case, rightly or wrongly, names of the petitioners were removed from the membership register in 2006 itself and that was never challenged by the 7 petitioners. In view thereof the applications filed by the petitioners under rule 6(5) were not maintainable since they were not members of respondent no.1 – society as on 30.6.2009. The collector, therefore, was not obliged to follow the further procedure as contemplated by sub-rule (6) of rule 6. The contentions urged by Mr.Walawalkar that the collector ought to have considered the relevant provisions of the Act, to which my attention was drawn, must be rejected. Scope of an inquiry under rule 6(5) of the rules cannot be expanded, apart from the fact that Collector in the inquiry is not suppose to have any material before him to find out whether the due procedure contemplated by the above referred provisions, while removing names of the members from the register of members, was followed. The Collector, in such inquiry, has no jurisdiction to hold that the resolution/decision, such as one in the present case, was wrong and illegal or to declare it a nullity. In the circumstances, these petitions fail and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)