1998 Supreme(Bom) 737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
R.J. Kochar, J.
Balasaheb s/o Kondiram Pawar others. ..... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra others ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2060 of 1998, decided on 26-11-1998
Advocates appeared :
C.K. Shinde, for the petitioners.
R.S. Deshmukh, A.G.P., for respondent No. 1 to 3.
Deelip Patil, for the respondent No. 4.
S.S. Shete, for the respondent No. 5.

Headnote:Section 154 and Constitution of-India, Article 226-Scope and modality of jurisdiction under Section 154.- The party cannot claim as a matter of right to move the Government for revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Section 154 cannot be called as an alternative and efficacious remedy. The Supreme Court in Everest Apartments Co-operative Housing Society v. State of Mal1arashtra, 1996 Mh LJ 643 has indeed, very succinctly described Section 154 being potential but not compulsive. This power is reposed in Government to intervene to do justice when occasion demands it and of the occasion for its exercise, the Government is made the sole Judge.

       Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules. 1961

       1527 -Rules 56-B, 56-C and 56-D-Society notified under Section 73-IC -District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies ordering deletion of names of 184 members from the provisional voters list while exercising powers under Rule 56-B (4)-Pursuant to the orders final or revised voters list was published on 12.5.1998 -Said list was conclusive in view of Section 56-D (2)-No jurisdiction to revise the list on the ground that same was inadvertently prepared-Valuable right of 184 members could not be affected by said deletion-Both orders hence vitiated.-On 19.12.1997 the Election Programme of a notified society was declared. On 22.12.1997 a provisional voters list was published and objections were required to be submitted to the said provisional voters list by 5.1.1998. The District Deputy Registrar was to decide the objections, if any, by 15.1.1998. Final voters list was to be published on 26.3.1998. By order dated 29.4.1998 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar, he ordered deletion of the names of 184 members of the co-operative society from the provisional voters list while exercising his powers under Rule 56-B (4) of the Rules. Pursuant to the said order, the final or revised voters list was published on 12.5.1998. The petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.4.1998 and the alleged final voters list published on 12.5.1998 filed writ petition challenging the order dated 12.5.1998.

       Held, that Rule 56 B directs every notified society to prepare a provisional list of voters in the year, in which the elections of such society are to be held. It is further made essential for the society to include in the aforesaid provisional list of voters the persons who are members as on the date prior to 180 days of the date on which the term of the committee of such society expires. The compulsion of compliance with the Rule 56-B (1) is further gathered from subsequent sub-sections which require the society to furnish such authenticated provisional voters list to the authorities which will invite claims and objections from the members of society Rule 56-C further provides the provisional voters list must contain all the relevant particulars prescribed in the said rule. Thereafter, comes Rule 56-D where-under the Registrar is empowered to scrutinize such provisional list and to consider any claims and objections which were invited. Any omission or error in respect of the name and address or other particulars in the list is to be considered by the Registrar. It is also pertinent to note that the Rule 56-D (2) has also mandatory flavour. The Registrar is duty bound to enquire into the claims and objections ete. and he is further obliged to consider each clain1 or objection and give his decision thereon in writing to the persons concerned and thereafter, he has to prepare the final list which the rule calls as conclusively final voters list. Finality is given by conclusiveness by adding the word conclusively and, therefore, one cannot ignore the intention of the Legislature that such a list prepared by the Registrar shall be conclusively final voters list and there cannot be any change of any nature, in any circumstances. The Legislature definitely contemplated at a particular point of time and end of the consideration of the voters list as otherwise the process would continue indefinitely at the instance of interested persons or disgruntled persons who would always be ready to put a spoke in the wheel of the elections. Even the Registrar cannot say that he had published the final voters list as is in the present case that it was done inadvertently or by mistake and that he would withdraw that final voters list and that he would republish it thereafter. There is a strict ban even on the authority of the Registrar to continue this process of finalization of the voters list. Having considered the claims and objections as required by the rules and having decided the same as prescribed in an inquiry, which would be in consonance with the principles of natural justice, after hearing the concerned parties, the list which he prepares shall be a conclusively final voters list. There is no reversion from this process. The Registrar had committed a blunder by revising the conclusively final voters list which was published on 26.3.1998 with his signature and office stamp. That was the end of the matter. He had no authority to revise a conclusively final voters list by informing the society that he had committed a mistake. By the impugned order, he had deleted the names of 184 members from the conclusively final voters list which contained 599 voters. He had deleted about one-third member from the voters list without hearing them. His action of revising the conclusively final voters list itself was bad in law and it was worst for him to have deleted 184 members without lending an ear to such a large number of voters who were deprived of their valuable right to vote for and contest the election. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.9.1998 and the so called final voters list declared by him on 12.5.1998, both were contrary to the mandatory rules and therefore, they deserved to be quashed and set aside and the same were quashed. The final voters list which was published on 26.3.1998 revived for the ensuing elections.

       Rule 56-D read with Rule 56-B Mandatory provisions-List prepared by Registrar shall be conclusively final voter list-There is no reversion from this process-Strict ban even on authority of Registrar.-If Court reads this rule carefully, it cannot miss a mandatory flavour which directs every notified society to prepare a provisional list of voters in the year, in which the elections of such society are to be held. It is further made essential for the society to include in the aforesaid provisional list of voters the persons who are members as on the date prior to 180 days of the date on which the term of the committee of such society expires. The compulsion of compliance with the Rule 56-B(1) is further gathered from subsequent subsections. Which require the society to furnish such authenticated provisional voters list to the authorities which will invite claims and objections from the member of the society. Rule 56-C further provides that the provisional voters list must contain all the relevant particulars prescribed in the said rule. Thereafter, comes Rule 56-D where-under the Registrar is empowered to scrutinise such provisional list and to consider any claims and objections which were invited. Any omission or error in respect of the name on address or other particulars in the list is to be considered by the Registrar. It is also pertinent to note that the Rule 56-D(2) has also a mandatory flavour. The Registrar is duty bound to enquire into the claims and objections, etc. and he is further obliged to consider each claim or objection and give his decision thereon in writing to the persons concerned and thereafter, he has to prepare the final voters list. The Legislature could have used merely the words "final voters list" but, finality is given by conclusiveness by adding the word conclusively and, therefore, Court cannot ignore the intention of the Legislature that such a list prepared by the Registrar shall be conclusively final voters list and there cannot be any change of any nature, in any circumstances.

       Rules 56-B, 56-C and 56-DConstitution of India, Article 226-Notified society-Election-Deletion of names of voters from conclusively final voters list without hearing-It was not only violative of mandatory provisions of rules but in total violation of principles of natural justice and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised. 1997 (1) Mh LJ 543-Relied on.