1 lpa271-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.271 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5284 OF 2010 Shivaji Balbhim Patil & Ors. ..Appellant. V/s. Collector, Solapur & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Surel Shah for appellants. Mr. A.R. Desai for respondents. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATED : 27TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. :- 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby rejecting the Writ Petition No.5284 of 2010. 2. The appellants are the representatives of 900 objectors before the Collector, Solapur. It is their plea that when the respondent No.2 Sugar Factory was being promoted, each one of them had paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- by way of share capital as stipulated in the bye- 2 lpa271-10 laws way back in the year 2000. However, when the Collector published the voter's list for the said Karkhana on 14/06/2010, they did not find their names in the said list, therefore, they submitted representations to the Collector. They were heard on the representation and the Collector by his order dated 15/06/2010 rejected the same. This order passed by the Collector on 15/06/2010 was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.5284 of 2010. 3. The learned Single Judge referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardhan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Shankar Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha V/s. State of Maharashtra [ 2002 (1) MJ.L.J. 659], Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V. & P. Sangh Ltd. & Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. [(2004) 1 S.C.C. 133], Pundlik V/s, State of Maharashtra & Ors. [A.I.R. 2005 SC 3476] and the judgments of this Court in the case of Tanaji Baburao Bhande V/s. The Secretary Department of Co-operation, Mantralaya [2008 (6) All M.R.686] and Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. V/s. The Collector, Solapur & Ors. in Letters Patent Appeal No.219 of 2010 and observed that it would not be proper to interfere with the order of the Collector at this stage and more so because, some of the petitioners had applied for the membership only in February, 2010 and did not fulfill the conditions laid down in Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 and bye-law No.17. 3 lpa271-10 4. With the help of Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the appellants, we have gone through the orders passed by the Collector. It is noticed that out of the 900 complainants, three were already included in the voter's list and from the remaining 897, 308 were granted membership for the first time on 21/03/2010. Under Sec. 27(3A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 they would be voters only on completion of two years of membership and, therefore, the names of 308 members could not be added to the voter's list. So far as the remaining 589 complainants were concerned, the Collector noted that though they had paid the share capital amount, they did not take any steps for becoming members, as required under bye-law No.17. There was nothing before the Collector to point out that these complainants or any of one them had taken up the issue of membership with the competent authority at anytime before the voter's list was published and, therefore, the plea that they could be treated as deemed members did not find favour with the Collector. The Collector noted that there was nothing called deemed membership unless the concerned person had applied for membership. If the membership application was submitted, it was required to be decided within 15 days under under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and in any case, the decision on the membership application is required to be communicated to the applicant within a period of three months. In case such a 4 lpa271-10 application is not decided and the decision is not intimated within three months, the applicant would claim to be a deemed member. Such record was not placed before the Collector by any of the remaining 589 complainants. In any case, for being included in the voters list, the membership period of two years is required to be completed. For all these cumulative reasons, the objections were turned down. 5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, not to interfere with the order passed by the Collector, does not call for any re-consideration at our hands and hence the appeal fails at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. The oral application made by Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the appellants for continuing the stay granted by the learned Single Judge, is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)