WP/6640/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6640 OF 2010 Dharmaraj Laxman Nalawade & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. The Collector, Solapur & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.6641 OF 2010 Ramhari A. Ranadive & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. The Collector, Solapur & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar i/b R.S. Ghadge for Petitioners Mr.S.N. Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 Mr.P.S. Dani i/b for Respondent No.4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Petitioners are delegates of cooperative societies (for short, hereinafter referred to as `societies') which are affiliated to Respondent No.4 society. Respondent No.4 society is a specified society within the meaning of section 73G of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The societies became members of Respondent No.4 when the value of each share was Rs.3,000/-. By a resolution dated 18.7.2000, Respondent No.4 increased the share value to Rs.5,000/- and called upon the affiliated societies to pay an additional amount in respect of the increased face value of the shares. The resolution of the managing committee was WP/6640/2010 : 2 : passed on 19.7.2007 and that passed by the general body affirming the decision of the managing committee was passed on 28.12.2007. The managing committee had resolved to recommend the deletion of the names of the societies as they had not paid the increased amount of the face value of the shares. At the meeting of the general body, it was resolved that the decision of the managing committee regarding class A and class B members (Class B being the member societies) should be ratified and accordingly, the names of several societies including the societies of which the Petitioners are delegates were removed from the membership register. It appears that some of the affiliated societies of Respondent No.4 filed a dispute before the cooperative Court challenging the resolution No.9B passed at the general body meeting on 28.12.2007, deleting the names of these affiliated societies from the list of member societies. The cooperative Court refused to grant any injunction and therefore the affiliated societies preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Cooperative Appellate Court at Pune. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the societies and stayed the resolution No.9B passed by the general body of the Respondent No.4 society at the meeting held on 28.12.2007. However, this order was passed subject to payment of the additional amount in respect of each share held by the societies. Aggrieved by this order, a writ petition was preferred by Respondent No.4 society before this Court being writ petition No.6628 of 2009. That petition was dismissed by Karnik, J. on 29th July, 2010. However, the affiliated societies were granted a further time to tender the call money within four weeks from the date of the order i.e., by 28th July 2010. It appears that the societies of which the petitioners are delegates deposited the increased amount in the face value of the shares held by them between 3.7.2010 and 6.7.2010. The Petitioners being elected as the delegates of their respective societies, their names were sent to Respondent WP/6640/2010 : 3 : No.4 for being included in the provisional list of voters for B class members. However, Respondent No.4 society excluded these names while preparing the provisional voters list for being submitted to Respondent No.1. The election programme for finalisation of the voters list was declared on 8.6.2010. The provisional voters' list was also declared on 9.6.2010. Objections were to be raised by 17.6.2010. The Petitioners and their respective societies raised objections in respect of the non-inclusion of their names in the provisional voters' list. These objections were forwarded by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 for scruitinizing the same. Respondent No.2 submitted a report to respondent No.1 indicating that the membership of the societies was cancelled by the resolution of 28.12.2007 passed by the general body of Respondent No.4. Respondent No.1 accepted this report and refused to include the Petitioners in the voters' list. 2. Mr.Dani appearing for Respondent No.4 raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions on the ground that the petitions have been filed by the delegates of the affiliated societies rather than by the societies themselves. He submits that there is no prayer in the petition for inclusion of the affiliated societies in the voters' list and, therefore, the petition itself is misconceived. He points out that merely by seeking a prayer to include the names of the Petitioners in the voters' list will not be sufficient for granting the relief which the Petitioners are in fact claiming in this petition. He further points out that the petitioners can always file an election petition in case they are aggrieved by the results of the election. He submits that the election process has already commenced and it is well settled in view of the judgment in the case of Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (8) SCC WP/6640/2010 : 4 : 509 that the election process should not be stalled for any reason. 3. In my opinion, the first submission of Mr.Dani regarding the petitions not having been filed by the affiliated societies must be accepted. The Petitioners who are delegates would get a right to vote only if it is held that the affiliated societies continue as members and that the order passed by the Collector is incorrect. The impugned order indicates that the names of the societies were not to be included and the objections raised on their behalf were rejected by the Collector. In these circumstances, in my view, unless the societies themselves file a writ petition contending that they are aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners who are delegates of the societies There is no material on record to suggest that all these delegates were in fact the office bearers of the affiliated societies who could have filed the petition on behalf of the affiliated societies. Therefore, in my view, the writ petitions are not maintainable. 4. The contention of Mr.Dhakephalkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that this objection raised by Mr.Dani is hyper-technical cannot be countenanced. The Petitioners have sought to rely on the judgment passed by the cooperative appellate Court and confirmed by this Court where the resolution 9B passed by the general body on 28.12.2007 has been challenged. Significantly, the disputes were filed before the cooperative Court by the affiliated societies and not by their delegates. In my view, therefore, the contention that the objection is hyper-technical does not deserve to be accepted. 5. Writ Petitions are, therefore, rejected. 6. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.