1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2010. (Dilip Harihau Naphde and others .vrs. The Collector, Buldhana and others. ) 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. DATED : JULY 08, 2010. This Court has issued notice on 05.05.2010 and considering the nature of controversy, the matter is taken up for final hearing by making Rule, returnable forthwith. Accordingly, Shri R.Deo, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Sonare, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Shri A.S. Kilor, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 and Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.6 are heard. Contention of Shri Deo, learned counsel is, while considering the objections to the provisional voter list, respondent no.1 Collector ought to have restricted himself to the provisions of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Specified 2 Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971. He contends that the fact, that the elections of 437 Cooperative Societies out of 570 in the District were not held though their tenure had expired or then tenure of about 147 societies had expired about 6-7 years back and of 73 societies about 5 years back, cannot be relevant for the purpose of said Rule, in so far as respondent no.1 is concerned. Support taken by respondent no.1 from the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4962/2009, according to him is misconceived. Shri Jaiswal, learned A.G.P., Shri Kilor and Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel appearing for respective respondents are however supporting the impugned order. They contend that the Collector has taken further steps by directing appointing of Administrator on those societies as per the provisions of Section 73-H of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and holding of elections within further period of 2 months before finalizing the voters list. Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.3 Bank i.e. Cooperative Society states that respondent no.3 is only desirous of having elections in accordance with the law at the earliest possible opportunity. The facts show that the elected managing 3 committee of respondent no.3 Society was removed on 08.11.2005 under Section 110-A(iii) by the Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter on 07.12.2007 and 21.05.2009 the Reserve Bank of India has called upon the Registrar to hold elections to the Managing Committee of respondent no.3. Steps were taken on 06.07.2009 and respondent no.1 Collector who is authorized to conduct those elections, then called upon respondent no.2 to submit list of voters. Accordingly on 01.04.2010 as per the provisions of Rule 4A, list of voters was published and objections were invited. While considering those objections on 24.02.2010 the impugned order came to be passed. Effect of impugned order is the voters list published under Rule 4 has not been looked into and fresh elections to all Cooperative Societies are directed. Learned A.G.P. is seeking time to find out whether the Administrators came to be appointed on any of the societies because of these directions. It is not necessary for this Court to look into that controversy or to consider whether the Collector could have directed such appointment. It is an admitted position that the matter went to Collector under Rule 6 of the 1971 Rules, and in exercise of that jurisdiction, the orders impugned are passed. The provisions 4 of Rule 6[1] clearly state that the errors or omissions in respect of the names or address or other particulars in the list published under Rule 4 can be brought to the notice of the Collector and the Collector after considering such claim has to give his decision in writing to the person making that claim or raising that objection. The petitioners have produced before this Court the process initiated for said purpose which shows that the office of the Collector had called for information from Assistant Registrar of the cooperative Societies and also of the District Deputy Registrar. It appears that the District Deputy Registrar has given appropriate information, while the Assistant Registrar has pointed out that in case of many societies their tenure was already over. There is nothing on record to show whether Collector decided those objections or not. The orders of Collector under Rule 6 therefore cannot postpone the consideration of objections received and call for fresh list. It is apparent that if fresh elections are to be held, steps taken under Rule 4 earlier are wiped out and fresh list of voters will be required to be published under Rule 4 again. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court considers the grievance made directly before it. Perusal of 5 that order dated 24.11.2009 in Writ Petition No. 4962/2009 shows that in elections of A.P.M.C. Ralegaon, similar grievance was made and this Court has then interfered in the matter. That interference cannot be used by the Collector to adopt same procedure. The impugned order is thus unsustainable and without jurisdiction. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The respondent no.1 shall consider the objections received by him in accordance with the law (if not already considered and decided) and shall pass further appropriate orders in the matter. Writ Petition is thus allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.