1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5682 OF 2009 Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Dist. Kolhapur : Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Mr.Amit Borkar for the Petitioner. Mr. C R Sonawane, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : S B MHASE & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 21st July 2009 P.C. 1. Rule. By consent of the parties rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Mr.Amit Borkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. He submitted that none of the members of the Petitioner- Karkhana have filed an objection covered by Section 25 and 25-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 in respect of provisional voters list of the Petitioner-Karkhana. He further submitted that the Collector has passed suo moto order on 26 th June 2009 directing an enquiry into the eligibility of the persons mentioned in the provisional voters list. In our view, such an order cannot be passed by the Collector while he is preparing final voters list under the Maharashtra Specified Societies Election to Committees Rules, 1971. 2 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in the case of Karbhari Maruti Agawan & others v/s. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1995(1) Bom.C.R. 596. In our view, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in that matter several objections in respect of enrolment of the membership at the eleventh hour were received by the Collector and, therefore, without disturbing the election process enquiry was directed to be conducted by the Registrar for Co-operative Societies and that order has been upheld by this Court. But in the absence of any objection being taken to the provisional voters list, the Collector has no role under Rules 4 and 6 of the said Rules to take such a cognizance and refer the matter to the Registrar for Co-operative Societies. The impugned direction is therefore not sustainable and is therefore required to be quashed and set aside. 3. For the reasons stated above the Petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by making the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). sd/- sd/- [R.M.SAVANT, J] [S.B.MHASE, J]