RAVINDRA v. GHUGE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.Reserved on
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:268-DB *1* WP ELECTION sugar factoryIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.15083 OF 2023SANJAY @ RAOSAHEB YADAVRAO WAGHCHAUREVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.14765 OF 2023INWRIT PETITION NO.15083 OF 2023RAJU TUKARAM BOBADE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.14766 OF 2023INWRIT PETITION NO.15083 OF 2023EKANATH BABAN NAWALE AND OTHERSVERSUSSANJAY ALIAS RAOSAHEB YADAVRAO WAGHCHAUREAND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO.15147 OF 2023DNYANESHWAR VITTHALRAO AUTE AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSANDWRIT PETITION NO.15148 OF 2023AMOL BANDU RODI AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS *2* WP ELECTION sugar factoryANDWRIT PETITION NO.15243 OF 2023JAGANNATH KASHINATH FASATEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS…Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Shri Shailandra S. Gangakhedkar,Shri Rahul R. Karpe and Ms.Neha Kamble, Advocates for thePetitioners in the respective petitions.Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for the Respondents/ State Authorities.Shri V.H. Dighe, Advocate for the Respondents/ CooperativeElection Authorities.Shri D.J. Chaudhari, Advocate i/by Shri P.K. Nikam, Advocatefor the Respondent/ Sugar Factory.Shri V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate a/w Shri A.V. Hon, Shri K.J.Suryawanshi and Shri N.B. Khandare, Advocates for theIntervenors. ... CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.Reserved on :- 20th December, 2023.Pronounced on :- 08th January, 2024.ORDER ( Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :- 1.These matters were heard extensively on13.12.2023, 14.12.2023 and 19.12.2023, considering the extreme *3* WP ELECTION sugar factoryurgency expressed by the learned Advocates for the Petitioners.The Respondents had appeared on intimation or suo moto.2.In Writ Petition No.15083/2023, the Petitioner,whose name is admittedly enlisted in the provisional voters list,has put forth prayer clauses B, C, D and E as under:-“B)By an order of this Hon'ble Court in the likenature of appropriate writ and/or order ordirection in the like nature, kindly quash andset aside the provisional voters list publishedon 23.11.2023 and the program publishing forfinalizing the voter list published on23/24.11.2023 (Exhibit-F).C)By an order of this Hon'ble Court in the likenature of writ and/or appropriate order ordirection, kindly direct the respondent No.1and 4 to undertake thorough audit ofrespondent No.5 Sugar Factory from 2019-2020 till date including the aspect of sharecapital and accounts of respondent No.5.D)By an order of this Hon'ble Court in the likenature of writ and/or appropriate order ordirection, kindly direct the respondent No.3 tore-notify the process of finalization of voterslist in the light of audit report to be conductedby the respondent No.4 about the respondentNo.5 society from the year 2019- 2020 till dateafter due verification of the accounts and statusof members as per the by-laws (29.06.2013)and statutory provisions. E)Pending hearing and final disposal of the writpetition, kindly grant stay to the further processin the light of notification/ notice dated23/24.11.2023 published by the respondentNo.3 about finalization of voter list.” *4* WP ELECTION sugar factory3.In Writ Petition No.15147/2023, the Petitioners haveput forth prayer clauses B, C, D and E as under:-“B)Hold and declare that, the entire program fromthe stage of preparation of provisional voterslist published on 23.11.2023 and consequentialprovisional voters list published by therespondent No.3 for the general election ofrespondent No.5 sugar factory being bad,illegal and contrary to the provisions under law.C)By issuing appropriate writ order or directionin the like nature, kindly hold enquiry withregards to manifest illegalities committed at theinstance of respondent No.5 while holding theelection of the respondent No.5 Sugar Factoryby preparing and publishing illegal provisionalvoter lists in derogation with the mandatorycompliances and consequently new ReturningOfficer may kindly be appointed by holding thegeneral election of respondent No.5 SugarFactory and to that effect issue necessary orderor direction to the respondent authorities.D)By issuing appropriate writ order or directionin the like nature, kindly direct the respondentauthorities to publish program for preparationof provisional voter list afresh by followingmandatory compliances envisage under theMCS Act, 1960 and MCS Rules, 1961 andnecessary directions to that effect may kindlybe issued to the respondent authorities.E)Pending and final disposal of the instant writpetition and till the adjudication of the issuequa "provisional voters list" as raised in thisinstant writ petition, the further stages ofelection as well as election program should notbe proclaimed by the authorities.”4.In Writ Petition No.15148/2023, the Petitioners have *5* WP ELECTION sugar factoryput forth prayer clauses B, C, D and E as under:-“B)By an order of this Hon'ble Court in the likenature of appropriate writ and/or order ordirection in the like nature, kindly quash andset aside the provisional voters list publishedon 23.11.2023 and the program publishing forfinalizing the voter list published on23/24.11.2023 (Exhibit-E).C)By an order of this Hon'ble Court in the likenature of writ and/or appropriate order ordirection, kindly direct the respondent No.1and 4 to undertake thorough audit ofrespondent No.5 Sugar Factory from 2019-2020 till date including the aspect of sharecapital and accounts of respondent No.5.D)By an order of this Hon'ble Court in the likenature of writ and/or appropriate order ordirection, kindly direct the respondent No.3 tore-notify the process of finalization of voterslist in the light of audit report to be conductedby the respondent No.4 about the respondentNo.5 society from the year 2019- 2020 till dateafter due verification of the accounts and statusof members as per the by-laws (29.06.2013)and statutory provisions.E)Pending hearing and final disposal of the writpetition, kindly grant stay to the further processin the light of notification/ notice dated23/24.11.2023 published by the respondentNo.3 about finalization of voter list.”5.In Writ Petition No.15243/2023, the Petitioner hasput forth prayer clauses B, C and D as under:-“B. By issuing writ of mandamus the petitioner beallowed to filed his objection.C. By issuing writ of mandamus the respondentNo. 3 be directed to consider the objection of
Decision
*6* WP ELECTION sugar factorythe petitioner.D. During the pendency of the writ petition, thedate of filing the objection be extendedconsidering the natural calamity faced by thepetitioner and like agriculturist in the interest ofjustice.”In this Writ Petition No.15243/2023, admittedly, thePetitioner has not raised any objection to the publication of theprovisional voters list or the cut off date. The Petitioner praysthat his objections may be considered in this Petition.6.The programme/time schedule pertaining to thefinalization of the voters list in respect of the elections to theBoard of Directors of the Respondent Cooperative Sugar Factory,was published on 23.11.2023 by the District CooperativeElection Officer, Regional Joint Director of Sugar (hereinafterreferred to as the DCEO). The provisional voters list was to bepublished on 24.11.2023 at 11:00 AM. The objections were to beraised during office hours from 24.11.2023 to 04.12.2023 (16days). Hearing on the objections was to take place till 13.12.2023days). The decision on the objections was to be delivered on14.12.2023. We are informed that the hearing on the objectionsof around 4000 individual persons was conducted on day to daybasis from 05.12.2023 until 13.12.2023 (14 days). The final *7* WP ELECTION sugar factoryvoters list was to be published on 18.12.2023.7.As the hearing in the matter began on 13.12.2023,the learned Advocates informed us that normally, after the finalvoters list is published, the election programme has to bedeclared after the 10th day following the declaration of theprovisional voters list and not later than 20 days from such dateof declaration. The final voters list will be declared on18.12.2024.8.All the learned Advocates for the Petitioners, exceptin Writ Petition No.15243/2023, submitted that their grievancewas restricted only to the manner in which the provisional voterslist was prepared, was forwarded to the DCEO and the furtherorder of declaring the provisional voters list in Form E-3(1).They have stated that variety of objections were raised touchingthe issue of non-inclusion of names of individual member votersand representatives of certain societies, which are subject matterbefore the DCEO, who has heard the individual objectors,personally. As such, they prayed that this Court should decide theissue considering Rules 9 and 10 of the Maharashtra CooperativeSocieties (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (hereinafterreferred to as the Election Rules, 2014) and the Rules framed *8* WP ELECTION sugar factoryunder the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Rules).9.The learned Advocates for the Petitioners havestated that no objection is being raised as regards the cut off date01.10.2023 for preparing the provisional voters list, which earlierwas 01.02.2023.10.The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of thePetitioners, have contended as under:-(a)The cut off date for considering inclusion of namesof the members in the provisional voters list was 01.10.2023.(b)The total voters, taking into account even thepersons who are dead, should have been 18645.(c)It is undisputed that the committee of the Factorywas not in existence since an Administrator was appointed uponthe Factory.(d)There is no challenge to the appointment of theAdministrator.(e)As per Rule 9(3) of the Election Rules, theprovisional voters list was not prepared by the Authority, whowas entrusted with the duty of preparing the list under Rule 9(3). *9* WP ELECTION sugar factory11.The learned Advocates for the Petitioners havecontended that Rule 9(3) of the Election Rules has not beencomplied with. Reference is made to Section 2(7) of the 1960Act, which defines a “Committee” as under:-“(7) “committee” means the committee ofmanagement or board of directors or thegoverning body or other directing body of acooperative society, by whatever name called,in which the management of the affairs of asociety is entrusted;”12.It is undisputed that the Administrator has beenappointed and he has stepped into the shoes of the Committee.There is no challenge to the appointment of the Administratorand it is accepted that the Administrator will perform all suchduties as are required to be performed under the 1960 Act by theCommittee. So also, there is no challenge to theincharge/officiating Managing Director of the factory.13.Rules 9 and 10 of the Election Rules read as under:-“9. Provisional list of voters for the societieshaving society or society and individuals asmembers.—(1) A provisional list of voters shall be prepared byevery society in the year in whichthe elections of such society are due to be held.The active members who have completedminimum two years as members from the dateof their enrolment up to the date of expiry of *10* WP ELECTION sugar factoryterm of existing managing committee and incase of society being a active member who hascompleted minimum three years from the dateof enrolment to the date of expiry of period ofexisting managing committee; shall be includedin the provisional list as laid down in section of27. If different constituencies are provided inthe bye-laws, the names of voters shall bearranged constituency wise as laid down in thebye-laws.Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-rule,“the date of expiry of term of existingcommittee” means the date on which theexisting managing committee completes theperiod of five years from the date of election. (2) The period of three years provided in sub-section (3) of section 27 of the Act is to becounted from the date of enrolment of amember to the date when election of themanaging committee of the society becomesdue:Provided that, in case of societies where theelections could not be held before the expiry ofthe term of the committee due to unforeseenconditions or any other reason, provisional listof the voter shall be prepared on the basis ofthe date fixed by the SCEA:Provided further that, provisional list of votersof the society having its first elections dueafter term of expiry of the provisionalcommittee under section 73 (1A) (a) shallcomprise of all the members as on the date ofelection when due:Provided also that, the provisional list of thevoters of the society on which an authorizedofficer is appointed under section 77A or an *11* WP ELECTION sugar factoryadministrator is appointed under section 78Ashall be prepared on the basis of the date fixedby the SCEA.(3) Four copies of the authenticated provisionallists of voters shall be delivered in print aswell as preferably in digital form by thecommittee of the society to the District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or WardCo-operative Election Officer, or as directed bythe SCEA one hundred and twenty days beforethe date of expiry of the term of Committee.Copies of such lists shall be displayed on thenotice board of the society. The District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or WardCo-operative Election Officer shall, within tendays from its receipt, call for inviting claimsand objections from the members of thesociety.(4) If any committee fails to deliver copies of theprovisional lists of voters to the electionofficer on or before the due date, the DistrictCo-operative Election Officer or Taluka orWard Co-operative Election Officer shallhimself or through any person authorized byhim in this behalf, prepare such provisional listof voters and the expenditure incurred thereforshall be recovered from the committeeresponsible therefore, as arrears of landrevenue.(5) In the event of the District Co-operativeElection Officer or Taluka or Ward CooperativeElection Officer taking action under the lastpreceding sub-rule, he shall also cause copiesof the provisional list of voters to be displayedon his notice board and on the notice board ofthe District Co-operative Election Officer orTaluka or Ward Co-operative Election Officerand of the society within 10 days from the date *12* WP ELECTION sugar factoryof receipt of such list from the society forinviting claims and objections from themembers of the society:Provided that, such list may be published onthe official website of SCEA and the Co-operation Department.10. Particulars to be included in the provisional listof voters for the societies having societyor society and individuals as members.—(1) The provisional list of voters in case ofindividual Active members shall contain thesurname, name, father’s or husband’s name,age, gender (in alphabetical order) if any, withaddress recorded in the register of members inForm ‘E-3’ of every person entitled to beregistered as voter with such other particularsas may be necessary to identify him.(2) Where a society or firm is the member ofSociety, the District Co-operative ElectionOfficer or the Taluka or Ward Co-operativeElection Officer shall publish a date for callingthe name of representative, one hundred andfifty days prior to the date of expiry of term ofoffice of the Committee. And such society shallsend the name of representative dulyauthorized to vote at the election on behalf ofthe society or firm, so as to reach it to theoffice of the District Co-operative ElectionOfficer or Taluka or Ward Co-operativeElection Officer at least one hundredand twenty days prior to the date of expiry ofterm of office of the Committee. Therepresentative authorized by the membersociety shall be an active member of themember society.(3) While communicating the name of therepresentative to the society the affiliatedsociety shall enclose a copy of the resolution of *13* WP ELECTION sugar factorythe annual general body meeting of the societyor its committee, where the representative is soauthorized. The society shall include in the listof voters the names of all such representativesas have been communicated to it before thedate fixed for publication of the provisional listof voters by the District Co- operative Electionofficer or Taluka or Ward Co-operativeElection Officer. the list shall contain the nameof the affiliated societies, their registrationnumbers and addresses and the name ofrepresentative if any.(4) A society which has communicated the name ofits representative shall, by like resolution,be permitted to change the name of itsrepresentative only in case of death of therepresentative or resignation by therepresentative or if such representative is foundto be disqualified on adjudication by thecompetent authority under any of theprovisions of the Act, rules, by-laws or wherethere is newly elected committee of themember society not later than five days beforethe last date for making nominations.”14.It is canvassed that under the first and the thirdproviso below Rule 9(2), the provisional voters list of thesociety has to be prepared by the Committee, albeit, by theAdministrator in the present situation, as per the cut-off datefixed by the State Cooperative Election Authority (hereinafterreferred to as the “SCEA”). There is no dispute, inasmuch as,there is no challenge to the fact that the SCEA prescribed the cutoff date as 01.10.2023. The contention is that four copies of the *14* WP ELECTION sugar factoryauthenticated provisional voters list has to be delivered by theCommittee/ Administrator to the District Cooperative ElectionOfficer (hereinafter referred to as the “DCEO”). Such provisionallist of voters has to be displayed on the notice board of thesociety. The DCEO will then call for claims and objections fromthe members of the society.15.It is canvassed by the Petitioners that the particularsof the members to be included in the provisional voters list forthe society, have to be incorporated in form E-3 to indicate everyperson entitled to be registered as a voter and with otherparticulars as may be necessary to identify him. Form E-3appears as under:-“FORM E-3(See Rule 7 & 10)Provisional List of Voters1.Name and Address of the Society: ______________2.Registration No. and Date: ____________________3.Total Members as on date of publication of Provisional Voter’s List:____________4.Total eligible voters as on date of publication of Provisional Voter’sList:_______________Sr.No.Name of the member(in alphabeticalorder) (surname, firstname and middlename)MembershipNo.AgeGenderAddress123456 *15* WP ELECTION sugar factoryNote:- Society may prepare provisional voter’s list considering the area ofoperation, branches and the convenience of the conduct of election.Seal of the Society.Place:Date:Name and Signature of the Chief Executive Officer/ Secretary of the Society.”It is not disputed that the Chief Executive Officer of the societyis the Managing Director of the factory, in the instant case.16.We noticed from sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of theElection Rules that if the Committee/ Administrator fails todeliver the copies of the provisional voters list to the DCEObefore the due date, the DCEO shall himself or through anyperson authorized by him in this behalf, prepare such provisionalvoters list and the expenditure incurred therefor shall berecovered from the Committee or other persons responsibletherefor, as arrears of land revenue.17.It is undisputed that after the DCEO receives FormE-3, he inspects the same and publishes the list within 10 days ofit’s receipt for inviting claims and objections from the members.It is canvassed that the DCEO has failed in discharging thisfunction and, therefore, the entire election programme isrendered illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. *16* WP ELECTION sugar factory18.The learned Advocates for the Petitioners havereferred to the report by two members, who occupy the positionof the Auditor Class-I and the Auditor Class-II in the RespondentSugar Factory. They tendered the audit report with regard to themembership of the society to the Special Auditor Class-I,Cooperative Societies (Sugar), Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar.According to their report, they have found as under:-“७. श्री. संत एकनाथ् सहकारी साखर कारखाना लीएकनाथ् सहकारी साखर कारखाना लीसहकारीसाखरकारखानाली. पैठण तात एकनाथ् सहकारी साखर कारखाना लीा. पैठण ताजि(cid:22). छ. संभा(cid:22)ीनगरचीअह(cid:28)त एकनाथ् सहकारी साखर कारखाना लीादि १(cid:30)१/१०/ २०२३ वर तपासणी केलेल्या पात्रवरत एकनाथ् सहकारी साखर कारखाना लीपासण ताीकेलेल्यापात्र वअपात्रसंस्थासभास(cid:30)वव्यक्तीगत एकनाथ् सहकारी साखर कारखाना लीसभास(cid:30)यांच्यास्वत एकनाथ् सहकारी साखर कारखाना लींत्रयाद्यात एकनाथ् सहकारी साखर कारखाना लीयार करण्यात एकनाथ् सहकारी साखर कारखाना लीआलेल्याअसूनत्यांचीसंख्याखालीलप्रमाण ताेआहे.1. पात्रसंस्थासभास(cid:30)एकुण ता1062. अपात्रसंस्थासभास(cid:30)एकुण ता523. पात्रवैयदि १क्तकसभास(cid:30)एकुण ता65434. अपात्रवैयदि १क्तकसभास(cid:30)एकुण ता48285. अपात्रमयत एकनाथ् सहकारी साखर कारखाना ली/ नों(cid:30)नसलेलेसभास(cid:30)एकुण ता7116 सभास(cid:30)नों(cid:30)वहीनमुनाआयप्रमाण ताेएकुण तासभास(cid:30)18645”19.The learned Advocates further submit that thenumber of provisional valid voters is 6543 and there is no disputethat they have complied with the payment of increased share *17* WP ELECTION sugar factoryvalue amount, which is known as share capital. The grievance isas regards 4828 members, who have been declared as ineligibleon the ground that they have not paid the increased share capital.A suspicion is raised as regards the purported 7116 deceasedmembers or ineligible members. It is, however, contended thatthe said report submitted to the Special Auditor Class-I has noprobative value.20.It is further contended that the Administrator has nottendered the provisional voters list to the in-charge ManagingDirector as is required by law and the in-charge ManagingDirector has not tendered the list to the DCEO. It is furthercontended that the Administrator Shri Ramrao Tukaram Shelkeshould have tendered the provisional voters list. According to thePetitioners, the Administrator should have delivered it to theDCEO. The in-charge Managing Director should not havesubmitted the list to the DCEO. It is conceded that this objectionis not found in any of the Writ Petitions filed before this Court,except Writ Petition No.15147/2023 filed by DnyaneshwarVitthalrao Aute and another vs. The State of Maharashtra andothers. The grievance, therefore, is that only 6543 individualmembers out of 11371 have been presumed to be valid voters. *18* WP ELECTION sugar factory21.It is further canvassed that the provisional voters listin Form E-3 should have been published by the DCEO in FormE-3(1). This has not been done by the DCEO qua individualmembers. Form E-3(1) appears as under:-“FORM E-3(1)(See Rule 7 & 10)List of Voters1.Name and Address of the Society: ______________2.Registration No. and Date: ____________________3.Total Members as on date of publication of Provisional Voter’s List:____________4.Total eligible voters as on date of publication of Provisional Voter’sList:_______________Sr.No.Name ofthemembersocietyName of therepresentative ofmember society(surname, firstname andmiddle name)MembershipNo.AgeGenderAddress1234567Seal of the Society.Place:Date:Returning Officer.”22.It is canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners that,notwithstanding Sections 25, 26 and 35, Section 27 vests in amember of the society, a right to vote whether, he has beendisqualified or not. Section 27 reads as under:- *19* WP ELECTION sugar factory“27. Voting powers of members(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-sections (2)to (7), both inclusive, no member of anysociety shall have more than one vote in itsaffairs; and every right to vote shall beexercised personally, and not by proxy:Provided that, in the case of an equalityof votes the Chairman shall have a casting vote.Explanation.—For the purposes of thissub-section, “votes to more thanone candidate from the panel” shall be treatedas one vote.(2) Where a share of a society is held jointly bymore than one person, the person whose namestands first in the share certificate, if present,shall have the right to vote. But in his absencethe person whose name stands second, and inthe absence of both, the person whose namestands next, and likewise, in the absence of thepreceding persons the person whose name isnext on the share certificate, who is present andwho is not a minor, shall have the right to vote.(3) A society, which has invested any part of itsfunds in the shares of any federal society, mayappoint one of its members to vote on itsbehalf in the affairs of that federal society; andaccordingly such member shall have the rightto vote on behalf of the society:Provided that, any new member societyof a federal society shall be eligible to vote inthe affairs of that federal society only after thecompletion of the period of three years fromthe date of its investing any part of its fundin the shares of such federal society:Provided further that, where the electionis to a reserved seat under section 73-B, noperson shall have more than one vote.(3A) An individual member of a society shall not be *20* WP ELECTION sugar factoryeligible for voting in the affairs of that societyfor a period of two years from the date of hisenrollment as a member of such society:Provided that, nothing in this sub-sectionshall apply in respect of a co-operative housingsociety and a co-operative premises society.(4) A company or any other body corporateconstituted under any law for the time being inforce which has invested any part of its fundsin the shares of a society may appoint any oneof its directors or officers to vote on its behalfin the affairs of such society; and accordinglysuch director or officer shall have the right tovote on behalf of the company or bodycorporate.(5) Where a firm has invested any part of its fundsin the shares of a society, any one of itspartners [appointed by the firm] shall beentitled to vote in the affairs of the society onbehalf of the firm.(6) A local authority or public trust which hasinvested any part of its funds in the shares of asociety, may appoint any of its members ortrustees, to vote on its behalf in the affairs ofthat society; and accordingly such personsshall have the right to vote on behalf of thelocal authority or the public trust, as the casemay be.(7) In the case of a federal society, the votingrights of individual members thereof shall besuch as may be regulated by the rules madeunder this Act and by the bye-laws of thesociety.(8) No nominal member shall have the right tovote and no such member shall be eligible to bea member of a committee or for appointment as *21* WP ELECTION sugar factorya representative of the society on any othersociety.(9) No nominee of the Government or anyfinancing bank on the committee of any societyshall be entitled to vote at any election ofofficers of such committee such as, thePresident, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or any otherofficer by whatsoever designation called, whoholds the office by virtue of his election to thatoffice.(10)If a member has taken a loan from the society,such member shall, whenever he is a defaulter,as provided in the Explanation to clause (i) ofsub-section (1) of section 73CA, have no rightto vote in the affairs of the society:Provided that, a member shall not bedeemed to be a defaulter, if he has dischargedhis obligation to deliver his marketable produceto the marketing or processing society and thevalue of such produce is not less than theamount of his dues, even if the actualsettlement of his dues, either in whole or inpart, takes place at a later stage. (11) The agricultural credit society may issuesuitable orders for the purpose of carrying outthe provisions of sub-section (10).”23.We find that a specific reference is made to sub-section (10) of Section 27 reproduced above, to contend that if amember has taken a loan from the society, such member shall,whenever he is a defaulter as provided in the explanation toclause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 73(CA) of the 1960 Act,will have no right to vote in the affairs of the society. The *22* WP ELECTION sugar factoryProviso below sub-section (10) of Section 27 is referred to, tocontend that a member shall not be deemed to be defaulter, if hehas discharged his obligation to deliver his marketable produceto the marketing or processing society and the value of suchproduce is not less than the amount of his dues, even if thatactual settlement of his dues, either in whole or in part, takesplace at a later stage.24.It is further canvassed that the register ofmembership maintained under Section 38, is a prima facieevidence of the date on which any person was admitted tomembership and of the date on which he ceased to be a member.It is, however, conceded that the issue, whether any member canvote is being considered by the returning officer and no issue ofexpulsion of a member is before this Court.25.Section 38 of the 1960 Act reads as under:-“38. Register of members(1) Every society shall keep a register of itsmembers, and enter therein the followingparticulars, that is to say,—(a) the name, address and occupation of eachmember;(b) in the case of a society having share capital, theshare held by each member;(c) the date on which each person was admitted amember;(d) the date on which any person ceased to be a *23* WP ELECTION sugar factorymember; and(e)such other particulars as may be prescribed:Provided that, where a society has by or underthis Act, permitted a member to transfer hisshare or interest on death to any person, theregister shall also show against the memberconcerned the name of the person entitled tothe share or interest of the member, and thedate on which the nomination was recorded.(2) The register shall be prima facie evidence ofthe date on which any person was admitted tomembership, and of the date on which heceased to be a member.”26.The Petitioners have relied upon Dharmin BaiKashyap vs. Babli Sahu and others, AIR 2023 SC 3868. Inparagraph 15, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under:-“15.There is hardly any need to reiterate the triteposition of law that when it comes to theinterpretation of statutory provisions relating toelection law, jurisprudence on the subjectmandates strict construction of the provisions.Election contest is not an action at law or a suitin equity but purely a statutory proceeding,provision for which has to be strictly construed.The petitioner having failed to make anyapplication in writing for re-counting of votesas required under Section 80 of the NirvachanNiyam, 1995, and having failed to seek reliefof declarations as required under Rule 6 of theRules of 1995, the Election Petition filed by thepetitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer (R)seeking relief of re-counting of votes alone wasnot maintainable.” *24* WP ELECTION sugar factory27.They further rely on Laxmi Singh and others vs.Rekha Singh and others, (2020) 6 SCC 812. The HonourableSupreme Court has held in paragraph 13 as under:-“13. It is to be noted, however, that all of the abovecases cited by the Petitioners pertain to the RPAct and the Rules made thereunder. It is a triteposition of law that when it comes to theinterpretation of statutory provisions relating toelection law, jurisprudence on the subjectmandates strict construction of the provisions.In Banwari Dass vs. Sumer Chand (1974) 4SCC 817 referring to the Delhi MunicipalCorporation Act, 1957, it was observed that anelection contest is not an action at law or a suitin equity but purely a statutory proceeding,provision for which have to be strictlyconstrued. Therefore, even in cases involvingelection provisions to prevent corrupt practices,the court and the tribunal must act judiciallyand not in an inquisitorial manner. The courtcannot bridge the gap and supply an apparentomission by applying principles of commonlaw and equity. Therefore, it is necessary for aproper determination of the issues at hand foran in-depth analysis of the Uttar PradeshKshettra Panchayat and Zila PanchayatAdhiniyam, 1961 and the 1966 Rules,specifically the interplay between Rules 4, 7and 12 of the 1966 Rules, and the legalprinciples enunciated by this Court in the abovepronouncements.”28.They also place reliance upon Tata ChemicalsLimited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar,(2015) 11 SCC 628. It is held by the Honourable Supreme Court *25* WP ELECTION sugar factoryin paragraph 18 as under:-“18.The Tribunal’s judgment has proceeded on thebasis that even though the samples were drawncontrary to law, the appellants would beestopped because their representative waspresent when the samples were drawn and theydid not object immediately. This is acompletely perverse finding both on fact andlaw. On fact, it has been more than amplyproved that no representative of the appellantwas, in fact, present at the time the CustomsInspector took the samples. Shri K.M. Jani whowas allegedly present not only stated that hedid not represent the Clearing Agent of theappellants in that he was not their employee butalso stated that he was not present when thesamples were taken. In fact, therefore, therewas no representative of the appellants whenthe samples were taken. In law equally theTribunal ought to have realized that there canbe no estoppel against law. If the law requiresthat something be done in a particular manner,it must be done in that manner, and if not donein that manner has no existence in the eye oflaw at all. The Customs Authorities are notabsolved from following the law dependingupon the acts of a particular assessee.Something that is illegal cannot convert itselfinto something legal by the act of a thirdperson.”29.The learned Senior Advocate Shri Hon appearing onbehalf of the Intervenors, who claim to be members of the SugarFactory, draws our attention to Section 26 to contend that amember is entitled to exercise his right under the Act, Rules and *26* WP ELECTION sugar factorybye-laws only after he has made such payment to the society inrespect of the membership or has acquired such interest in thesociety as may be prescribed. He further submits that, in the lightof the second proviso to Section 26, in case of increase inminimum contribution of the member in the share capital toexercise rights of membership, the society shall give due noticeof demand to the member and give a reasonable period to complywith it.30.Section 26 reads as under:-“26.No rights of membership to be exercised tilldue payments are made.A member shall be entitled to exercisesuch rights as provided in the Act, rules and by-laws:Provided that, no member shall exercisethe rights, until he has made such payment tothe society in respect of membership, oracquired such interest in the society, as may beprescribed and specified under the by-laws ofthe society, from time to time:Provided further that, in case of increasein minimum contribution of member in sharecapital to exercise rights of membership, thesociety shall give a due notice of demand to themember and give reasonable period to complywith it.”31.Shri Hon further submits that appropriate noticeswere issued to each of the members when the share capital was *27* WP ELECTION sugar factoryincreased. Those who deposited the increased share capital, werecontinued as members of the society. Those who did not pay theincreased share capital, had rendered themselves as defaulters.Every year an audit is done. Two auditors conducted the auditeven as regards the membership of the Sugar Factory. The auditreport can be challenged under Section 154 of the 1960 Act,which is a statutory remedy available to an aggrieved person.32.The learned Advocate Shri Chaudhari representingthe Administrator submits that these petitions are whollymisconceived and frivolous. He submits, on the basis of theaffidavit in reply and the record produced, that six Petitionersamongst these were legal heirs of the earlier shareholders/members of the Sugar Factory, who had voting rights. After theirdemise, these six Petitioners applied for transfer of the sharecertificates. The revised share capital amounts were deposited bythem. After due scrutiny, their names were included in theprovisional voters list. A large number of members did notdeposit the revised share capital for almost eleven years.Individual notices were issued on their addresses and so also,published in daily “Sakal”, which is one of the oldest and largelycirculated newspaper in the State of Maharashtra. Those who did *28* WP ELECTION sugar factorynot deposit the increased share capital, were recorded as beingdefaulters and their names were not included in the provisionalvoters list.33.Shri Chaudhari specifically refers to paragraphs 5, 6,7 and 10 of the affidavit in reply filed by Mr.Ramrao TukaramShelke, Administrator, dated 14.12.2023, which read (verbatim)as under:-“5) I say that in pursuance to the applications madeby the petitioners (except petitioner No.1 & 2)as per Section 30 r/w Rule 24 the shares havebeen transferred in the name of petitioners 3 to8. I further say that, so far as petitioner No.1 isconcern, the father of the petitioner namelyBandu Govindrao Rodi expired on 21.11.2003.After the eath of said deceased BanduGovindrao Rodi, no information was receivedby the sugar factory, as such, the name ofBandu Govindrao Rodi was continued in thevoter's list for the election 2016, for want ofinformation of his death. On perusal of therecord available in the office, it is found thatthe deceased Bandu Govindrao Rodi wasdefaulter for Rs.6030/- towards payment ofshare amount. The notice mentioning thedefault was issued to him on 12.4.2021 and8.8.2023. Beside these two notices issued toBandu Govindrao Rodi and Kotambe BapuKisan, a public notice was also published in thedaily newspaper on 17.8.2023. The record doesnot find any application made by the petitionerNo.1 & 2 for transfer of shares in their name asrequired under the provisions of sec. 30 r/wrule 24 of Rules 2016. In absence of anyapplication, petitioners 1 & 2 are not entitled *29* WP ELECTION sugar factoryfor transfer of shares which, were held bydeceased father.6) Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 have placed theapplication dated 8.12.2023 addressed to theJoint Director of Sugar, Aurangabad,requesting for transfer of shares in their nameand for that issue necessary instructions. It ispertinent to note that the voter's list has beendeclared as on 24.11.2023 being cut off date1.10.2023 for valid voters strictly inaccordance with the provisions of Rules, 2014.The application submitted with the JointDirector of Sugar by the Petitioners Nos.1 and2 are dated 8.12.2023 are beyond the cut offdate, as such, cannot be considered as validapplications and the Joint Director is notsupposed to take the action.It is pertinent to note that the petitioners1 & 2 under their own signature submitted arequest application dated 3.12.2023 to theRegional Joint Director raising an objection tothe provisional voter's list. The applications aremade in the name of deceased father BanduGovindrao Rodi and Bapurao KisanraoKotumbe, who died in the year 2003 and 19-09-2020 respectively. This action on the part ofPetitioners Nos. 1 & 2 cannot be countenanceon any ground, as such the petitioners' claimcannot be considered either in the present writpetition or even before the Joint Director(Sugar). The petitioners' claim is required to berejected outright. Annexed hereto and markedas ANNEXURE R- 5-1 is the copy ofapplication dated 3.12.2023.(7) It is submitted that the notice to the deceasedfather of the Petitioners Nos.1 & 2 and noticesto the Petitioners No.3 to 8 were issued in thelight of the provisions of bye-law No.6 r/w Sec.26 of the Maharashtra Cooperative SocietiesAct, 1960, asking the petitioners to depositremaining arrears towards share amount. As per *30* WP ELECTION sugar factorythe provisions of approved bye-laws dated29.6.2013, concern members who are in arrearsof the share amount is required to pay the samewithin a period of three years from the date ofabove said order or the concern shareholdersshall request the sugar factory for deducting theamount from the bill of sugarcane supplied bysuch members to the sugar factory. It seemsthat, neither share amount was deposited withina stipulated period of three years nor theinstructions were given by making requestapplication to the sugar factory for deduction ofamount equal to the shares from the bills ofsugarcane supplied by such members. Inabsence of the action on the part of thepetitioners, the transfer of shares in the name ofpetitioners could not be effected. In absence ofcompliance of provisions of bye-law No.6 r/wSec. 26 of the Act, the sugar factoryconstrained to issue notices to the PetitionersNo.3 to 8 and to the deceased fathers ofPetitioners No.1 & 2. Annexed hereto andmarked as ANNEXURE 5-2 are the copies ofrelevant extracts of membership register in theprescribed Form-I. Annexed hereto and markedas ANNEXURE R-5-3 Colly are the copies ofnotices issued on 12.4.2021 along with thepostal receipts and notices dated 8.8.2023along with the postal receipts, and public noticepublished in 'Daily Sakal' dated 17.8.2023.”“10) I say that, the petitioners have raised severalquestion of facts which are disputed and suchdisputed question of facts need not beentertained in the present writ jurisdiction. Thepetitioners have made a incorrect statement offacts contained in Ground No.I that, nodecision has been taken on the applications fortransfer of shares, which tantamount a falsestatement of facts in light of the explanationgiven in aforementioned paras. I say that the *31* WP ELECTION sugar factoryapplications submitted by the Petitioners No.3to 8 have been dealt with and therefore shareshave been transferred which is a part of recordbeing Exh.R-5-2. In the light of the recordplaced along with this affidavit, the statementscontained in Ground No.I is false statement offacts and petitioners are required to be dealtwith sternly.”34.He refers to page 163 of the petition paper book andsubmits that the said documents indicate that the applications ofthose applicants, who had paid the increased share capital, wereallowed for including the names in the provisional voters list. 35.He then refers to the documents from page No.169onwards which indicate specific notices issued to the defaultingmembers under Section 26 of the 1960 Act by which, the deficitamount towards the share capital was made known to each ofthese defaulting members. Taking into account the paperpublication, which is at page 196, and a long list of memberswho were served via ‘inland Speed Post’, he supports theaverment that those members who had not paid their deficitcapital share amounts, were not valid voters. He quickly addsthat this issue would not be subject matter of adjudication beforethis Court in the present proceedings as per the contentions of thePetitioners and the said issue has already been addressed to the *32* WP ELECTION sugar factoryDCEO before whom more than 4500 applicants have lodgedtheir objections.36.He refers to Section 26 of the 1960 Act and the twoproviso there below, which are reproduced above, to support hiscontention that no rights of membership could be exercised tillthe due payments are made. While referring to the two proviso,he contends that the statutory requirement is that the society/member has to be given due notice of demand and a reasonableperiod to comply with the demand. In this context, he draws ourattention to the speed post receipts and the paper publication andfurther contends that such notices were issued in 2021 and 2023.More than two years time was granted to such members to paytheir increased share capital. He refers to Kondiba s/o BabaraoManorkar, Nanded vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2016MCR 446 (Marathwada Cases Reported) and submits that on theone hand, notices were issued to the members on their residenceaddresses and on the other hand, a paper publication was alsomade, though it was not necessary.37.He refers to the submission of the Petitioners that“Section 27(10) r/w Section 73CA of the 1960 Act would enablea voter to vote even if he is a defaulter or has not paid the *33* WP ELECTION sugar factoryincreased value of the share capital,” and contends that the saidsubmission is wholly misconceived and fallacious. There is noprovision under the Act or the Rules that a member, who has notpaid the revised share capital and whose rights as a membercannot be exercised under Section 26, and yet, he can vote in theelections.38.Shri Chaudhari then relied upon Rule 24 of the 1961Rules and contended that a specific duty has been cast on thelegal heirs to inform the factory about the death of a shareholder.There are several cases wherein, the legal heirs never conveyedthe demise of a shareholder to the factory. He has then reliedupon the sur-rejoinder dated 20.12.2023 filed in Writ PetitionNo.15147/2023, more particularly paragraph Nos.1 to 9. Thespecific contentions set out in these paragraphs can besummarized as under:-(a)The Petitioners have twisted the facts, misread thedocuments and misinterpreted the provisions of law to create achaos in the matter.(b)In view of section 2(20) of the 1960 Act, read withRule 2(4) of the 2014 Election Rules and bye-law Nos.28 and41(9), the Managing Director is the Head of the Society, who has *34* WP ELECTION sugar factorythe right to submit the provisional voters list of the members tothe competent authority.(c)Respondent No.3 had called for the list of thesocieties (member societies) vide communication dated09.10.2023. In pursuance to the said communication, theAdministrator passed a resolution dated 09.10.2023 andaccordingly, authorised the incharge MD to tender the list of 106member societies, which was submitted on 10.10.2023.(d)The list of individual members was sought and aresolution dated 20.11.2023 was passed empowering the in-charge Managing Director to submit the provisional voters list ofindividual members and the delegates of the member societies, toRespondent No.3.(e)With a covering letter dated 22.11.2023, theprovisional voters list of member societies as well as theprovisional voters list of the individual members, weresubmitted.(f)The above actions are in tune with the 2014 ElectionRules. Even Form E-3 mandated the MD to submit the lists.(g)Baseless allegations are made by the Petitionerscontending that the Managing Director, in connivance with *35* WP ELECTION sugar factoryRespondent No.3 (Regional Joint Director), with the help of theAudit Department, has tried to delete several members. (h)The administrative order dated 19.10.2023 carryingout an inspection by the Audit Department for preparation ofprovisional voters list, is as per the mandate of Rules 9 and 10 ofthe Election Rules, 2014. (i)The voters list was published by the DCEO in hisoffice and was affixed on the notice board of the factory, at theoffice of the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies (ARCS),Paithan and on the website of the SCEA under Rule 6 of the 2014Election Rules, which are identical and signed by the competentauthority.(j)The voters lists are certified by the competentauthority. (k)The list of individual members, who did not sufferany legal impediment, are 6543 individual members and thesociety members are 106, as per the membership registermaintained in ‘I’ Form under Sections 26, 27 and 73-CA of the1960 Act.(l)The Petitioners are merely making allegations forthe purposes of raising doubts as regards the voters lists and the *36* WP ELECTION sugar factoryprocedure, without any substantiation on facts or in law.(m) Reckless allegations are being made with regard tothe authenticity of the lists uploaded by the DCEO on the officialwebsite of SCEA.(n)It is denied that no signature is found below the lastprovisional voter at Sr.No.6543 or the list of member societyvoters.(o)On 10.10.2023, the list of societies was submittedbecause the names of delegates of the societies were notreceived. After such names of delegates were received till09.11.2023, that the resolution dated 20.11.2023 was passed bythe Administrator and accordingly, individual membersprovisional voters list as well as the member societies provisionalvoters list, was submitted to Respondent No.3 in accordance withthe 2014 Election Rules.(p)Respondent No.4/ Administrator had earlier issuedthe order dated 09.10.2023 to the in-charge Managing Directorwith reference to initiation of election process. (q)Since the final voters list is published on18.12.2023, nothing would survive in this petition and thePetitioners will have to challenge the final voters list by taking *37* WP ELECTION sugar factoryrecourse to a statutory remedy under Section 91 of the 1960 Act.(r)The Petitioners are guilty of suppression of the factthat about 7116 members had expired, 52 member societies weredisqualified and 4828 individual members were not entitled tovote as they had not paid the increased value of the shares over aperiod of more than three years. 39. The learned Advocate Shri Dighe representing theDCEO submits that he has filed an affidavit indicating that hehad signed below form E-3(1). These petitions are filed by ahandful Petitioners as if they have been filed on behalf of morethan 11000 members. No statement has been made in the WritPetitions that such petitions are filed under Order I Rule 8 of theCode of Civil Procedure. He refers to the document dated22.11.2023 signed by the in-charge Managing Directorforwarding the lists of the individual member voters and themember society voters, under due authorisation from theAdministrator. He also points out the document dated 23.11.2023by which, the DCEO has published the said lists at four places,referred to herein above. He also refers to the panchanamacarried out to evidence the affixing of the said lists. *38* WP ELECTION sugar factory40. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Hon contendsthat all these Petitions are frivolous and are founded on baselessallegations. After the provisional voters lists have beenpublished, these petitions have been filed. The DCEO has passedan order on 14.12.2023 dealing with all the objections of theaggrieved persons and the final voters list is published on18.12.2023. He relies upon the judgment delivered by theHonourable Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka and othersvs. Gunjahalli Nagappa and others, (1976) 1 SCC 204, andcontends that all these Petitions cannot be entertained by thisCourt.41.In the light of the pleadings on oath and thesubmissions of the litigating parties, we have referred to thereproduced Sections under the 1960 Act and the Rules under the1961 Rules and the 2014 Election Rules. There is no dispute thatan Administrator has been appointed in place of the committee.None of the Petitioners opposed the appointment of theAdministrator and there is no challenge to that extent. It isequally undisputed that the Committee is now officiating throughthe Administrator and an in-charge Managing Director has beenappointed. There is no objection on this count as well. It is also *39* WP ELECTION sugar factoryundisputed that the Managing Director has forwarded theprovisional voters list in form E-3, to the DCEO, under theauthorisation of the Administrator. The record also reveals thatthe DCEO has published the list in Form E-3(1) by following theprescribed procedure.42.In this backdrop, the Petitioners contend that thedocuments placed before this Court are bogus and fabricated.The Respondents contend that these are baseless and recklessallegations, which are set out only to create confusion and acloud of suspicion.43.As such, on the one hand, there are documentssupported with affidavits in reply, indicating that the Rules havebeen followed and the lists have been tendered, which we find tobe true and correct. The sequence of events also indicate thepassing of the resolution by the Administrator and thereafter, theManaging Director tendering the lists to the DCEO. On the otherhand, the Petitioners have merely levelled allegations with anattempt to dispute the said documents, by terming them to bebogus and fabricated. In this backdrop, disputed issues cannot begone into by this Court and the Writ Petitions cannot beentertained. *40* WP ELECTION sugar factory44.The record also reveals that over a period of morethan three years, thousands of members have not paid theincreased value of the shares. The documents indicate that eachof them were served with notices and the receipts are placed onrecord. Payment of the increased value of the shares is amandatory requirement. Publication of the notices in a largelycirculated/ reputed newspaper “Sakal”, is in addition to thesenotices. Whether such notices were received by the individualpersons, is a matter of dispute and would require recording oforal and documentary evidence. Same is the case with thosepersons who are legal heirs of the deceased shareholders. Thesetwo aspects have not been raised before us by these Petitioners asthey were already raised before the Returning Officer. We areinformed by the Respondents that the Returning Officer hasspent days together in causing hearing on each of such objectionsuntil 14.12.2023 and has finally delivered his orders on suchobjections. The final voters list has been published on18.12.2023.45.Considering the law applicable and the limitedjurisdiction of this Court in entertaining such petitions at thestage at which they have been filed, it would be an anathema to *41* WP ELECTION sugar factorydeal with seriously disputed contentions of the parties, whichcannot be discerned without recording of oral evidence. Hence,these Writ Petitions ought not to be entertained.46.In view of the above, Writ Petition Nos.15083/2023,15147/2023 and 15148/2017 are dismissed.47.In Writ Petition No.15243/2023 (JagannathKashinath Fasate vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), thePetitioner has never raised any objection before the ReturningOfficer. In the absence of raising objections, this Court cannotembark on the exercise of dealing with the objections which arewithin the domain of the Returning Officer. Hence, this WritPetition No. 15243/2023 is not entertained and is dismissed.48.All the pending Civil Applications would notsurvive and stand disposed off.49.We make it clear that the dismissal of these Petitionsshall not be an impediment to any aggrieved Petitioner foravailing of a remedy as may be permissible in law for theredressal of his/her grievances. All contentions are kept open.50.No order as to costs. kps (Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)