1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7381 OF 2009 .. Pandit Krishnat Patil and ors. ...Petitioners v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Counsel i/b S.S.Kanetkar for the Petitioners. Ms.P.S.Cardoza, AGP for Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/b Mr.A.B.Borkar for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATED: 6th January, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The elections to the Board of Directors of the Respondent No.4-Sugar 2 Factory, which is the specified Co.operative society within the meaning of Maharashtra Co.operative Societies Act are scheduled to be held in the year 2010. For the purpose of holding those elections, now voters lists are to be finalised. Provisional voters list has been published. The Collector, therefore, by letter dated 27-7-2009 asked the Respondent No.3, who is Registrar in relation to the Respondent No.4 specified society to submit his report in relation to the objection received to the provisional list of voters for the purpose of finalisation of the list of voters. The Respondent No.3, therefore, started process of holding inquiry for the purpose of submitting his report to the Collector. For that purpose, communications were addressed to the Sugar Factory as also the members to whose inclusion in the provisional list of voters objections were 3 raised. It appears that hearing was fixed before the Respondent No.3 on 31-7-2009 and 1-8-2009. It appears that hearing was given on 31-7-2009, but on the same day a communication was addressed by the Respondent No.3 to the Respondent No.4-specified society that the members who were scheduled to be heard on 1-8-2009 need not now remain present for hearing on 1-8-2009. It is at this stage that the Petitioners have approached this court. The Petitioners are members of the Respondent No.4-society, their names have been included in the provisional list of voters and Respondents Nos. 5 to 10 have raised objection to the inclusion of their names in the provisional list of voters. According to the Petitioners, communication addressed by the Respondent No. 3 to them as also to the Respondent No.4- Specified society shows that the Respondent 4 No.3 proposes to hold inquiry into the question whether their admission to the membership of the Respondent No.4-society is valid or invalid. According to them, the law as settled by this court by its judgment in the case of Dhondiba Parshuram Lakade and ors. v/s. Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. And ors. 1979 Mh.L.J. Page 311 and subsequent judgments is that the Collector cannot go beyond the membership register of the society while finalising the list of voters. Their further grievance is that the Respondent No.3 was not justified in denying a right of hearing to the persons whose inclusion in the provisional list of voters is challenged and in relation to whom a report is to be submitted by the Respondent No.3. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the 5 Petitioners apart from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dhondiba Lakade s case, referred to above, also relied on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. 1997(1) Mh.L.J. Page 543 as also the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Sanjivraje Vijaysinha Naiknimbalkar & ors. v/s Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate & ors., 1997(4) Bom.C.R. 28, which judgment was delivered by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate s case and submits that as the Collector does not have power to go beyond the membership register, as a person holding inquiry on behalf of the Collector, the Registrar also does not have power to hold inquiry into validity or otherwise of the 6 admission of persons as members by the Society. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3. She submits that the Respondent No.3 is merely holding an inquiry into objections that have been raised to the provisional list of voters for the purpose of submitting a report to the Collector. After receipt of the report, it is for the Collector to decide whether the objections are to be accepted or are to be rejected. She submits that the Collector while deciding the objections will take into consideration the provisions of the relevant Rules and various judgments of this court that may be relevant. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, this court should not interfere at this stage, because the purpose of making an inquiry by the 7 Respondent No.3 is merely to submit his report to the Collector on the objections. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.5 to 10 , on the other hand, submits that the Registrar while holding an inquiry can also exercise his powers under Section 25A of the Co.operative Societies Act as also Section 11 of the Co.operative Societies Act and therefore, an objection cannot be raised that the Registrar does not have power to go beyond the membership register. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karbhari Maruti Agawan and ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. 1994 Mh.L.J. 1527. 6. Now, if in the light of these rival submissions the record of the case is perused, it becomes clear that admittedly the 8 provisional list of voters has been published. The names of the Petitioners are included in that provisional list of voters. The Respondents have raised objections to the inclusion of the names of the Petitioners in the provisional list of voters. The Collector as required by law has forwarded those objections to the Respondent No.3 for inquiry and submission of report to the Collector. In our opinion, there can be no debate in view of the judgment of this Court that while making an inquiry into objections submitted to the provisional list of voters, the Registrar acts as an agent or delegate of the Collector for the purpose of holding an inquiry, and therefore, area of jurisdiction of the Registrar in making the inquiry cannot be larger than the power that the Collector possesses in the process of finalisation of the list of voters. However, the fact remains 9 that, even if the Registrar while holding an inquiry exceeds his jurisdiction and makes a report on the aspect over which the Collector does not have authority, obviously the Collector will not be able to accept that part of the report and it is ultimately for the Collector to decide what part of the report is to be accepted and what part of the report is not to be accepted. Therefore, it will not be appropriate for us to interfere at this stage with the process of making report by the Registrar to the Collector. Because in case the Registrar recommends that the names of the Petitioners are to be deleted from the provisional list of voters on any ground, in order to comply with the principles of natural justice the Collector will be under a duty to supply a copy of that report to the Petitioners, who are likely to be adversely affected in case the report is 10 accepted by the Collector and they will have to be given an opportunity of being heard by the Collector. At that stage it will be open to the Petitioners to point out what is the ambit of jurisdiction of the Collector in finalising the list of voters. In our opinion, therefore, as the Petitioners will have an opportunity to appear before the Collector, in case the report of the Registrar goes against them. It is not necessary for us to interfere at this stage. It is clear from the submissions made on behalf of the Collector that the Collector is aware of his jurisdiction in finalising the list of voters and requirement of granting an opportunity of being heard to the persons who are likely to be affected by his order. Petition disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)