1 WP 8271.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8271 OF 2011 1. Vinayakrao Manikrao Khopade Age : 65 Yrs., Occ. Bussiness, R/o : “ Varsha ”, 9, Anand Nagar, Deopur, Dhule. 2. Samarth Shri Gajanan Sahakari Gruhtaran Sanstha Dhule, “ Varsha ”, 9, Anand Nagar, Deopur, Dhule. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Houseing Finance Corporation Ltd., Mumbai Housefin Bhawan Plot No. C-21, E-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, 2 WP 8271.2011 - [ J ] Bandra ( E ), Mumbai – 400 051. 3. The Collector Election Department Mumbai Suburb Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. 4. The District Deputy Registrar, Dhule. 5. The Deputy Registrar Taluka – Dhule. 6. Ganpatrao Sajanrao Pawar Age : 67 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : 23, “ Sajan Smruti ”, Prabhat Nagar, Behind Engineering College, Deopur, Dhule. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.P.Shah, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate holding for Mr. Amol Sawant, Advocate for Resp. No. 6. Mrs. Rajvaidya, Advocate for Resp. No. 2. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17/11/2011. 3 WP 8271.2011 - [ J ] ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition for setting aside the action of respondent no. 3 – the Collector, Mumbai whereby the name of petitioner no. 1 as a nominee of petitioner no. 2 – Society from the final voters’ list for the election of the Managing Committee of Maharashtra State Co-operation Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. came to be deleted. 3. Mr. S.P. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the name of the petitioner no. 1 appeared in the provisional voters’ list. The objection was raised by the present respondent no. 6 to the name of the petitioner no. 1 and some others. In the final list of voters, the name of the petitioners did not appear and was deleted. The learned counsel contends that as per Rule 6 Sub rule ( 4 ) of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 [ For short, ‘ said Rules ’ ], the Collector has to consider each claim or objection and thereafter given his decision thereon in writing to the person concerned. The list is to be finalized by the Collector after 4 WP 8271.2011 - [ J ] deciding all claims and objections. 4. The learned counsel contends that the Collector has not given any decision on the objection and without giving any decision, has deleted the name of the petitioner no. 1 from the final voters’ list. The said act is illegal. The Collector has simply relied on the report of the District Deputy Registrar [ For short, ‘ D.D.R. ’ ]. The Collector can not delegate his authority. According to the learned counsel, as per Section 25 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the resignation is not effective till it is accepted. In the present case, the resignation of the petitioner no. 1 has not been accepted. This aspect has not been considered. The other points are also raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Mr. V.D. Hon, the learned counsel for respondent no. 6 submits that the report has been called by the petitioner from the D.D.R., who is an expert and relying on his opinion, the list has been finalized. The report was submitted by the office and the Collector has signed on the same, meaning thereby that he has accepted the objection. As such, that would be sufficient compliance of sub rule ( 4 ) of Rule 6 of the said Rules. The learned counsel further contends that even otherwise the petitioner has one more remedy in the shape of Sub Rule ( 5 ) of Rule 6 of the said Rules and one more opportunity is available to the petitioner. 5 WP 8271.2011 - [ J ] The learned counsel contends that the petitioner has already tendered his resignation and the same takes effect from the date of the submission of the resignation. 6. Mr. R.P.Phatake, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader supports the order passed. 7. Mrs. Rajvaidya, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that petitioner no. 2 is a member of the Society and the petitioner no. 2 may nominate petitioner no. 1 or any other person. 8. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have perused the pleadings. 9. From the record, it nowhere transpires that the Collector has given any decision by applying his mind. The affidavit in reply is filed by respondent no. 6, so also the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule. The affidavits and annexures annexed to the said affidavit nowhere shows that the Collector has given any decision. It appears that the objections raised were referred to the D.D.R. and the report was called from the D.D.R. and on the basis of the report of the D.D.R., the voters’ list was finalized. 6 WP 8271.2011 - [ J ] 10. It is a trite law that when statute/rules prescribe particular act to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner only. When the rules mandate the Collector to decide the claims or objection and to give decision on the same, such acts of deciding the claims and objections and giving decision can not be delegated. The decision shall have to be given by the Collector considering the claims and objections by applying his mind and giving reasons thereof. The reasons depict the application of mind on the part of the authority deciding the objections. 11. In the present case, as no decision has been given by the Collector on the claims/objections while deleting the name of the petitioners from the voters’ list, the said act can not be sustained. 12. In view of the above, the act of the Collector in deleting the name of the petitioners from the final voters’ list for the election of the Committee of respondent no. 2 is set aside and the Collector shall decide the objection raised to the inclusion of the name of the petitioners in the final voters’ list himself after hearing the respective parties. 13. The Writ Petition is allowed. The parties shall appear before the Collector, Mumbai on 28/11/2011. All points are kept open. After hearing both the parties, the Collector, Mumbai shall decide the said 7 WP 8271.2011 - [ J ] objection expeditiously preferably within one ( 1 ) week from the date of appearance of the parties. 14. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 8271.2011 - [ J ]