( 1 ) RULE, returnable forth with. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service of rule. Heard by consent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of the Collector dated 28. 6. 2005 refusing to include the petitioners name in the list of voters. This order is passed in the course of election to the Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari doodh Mahasangh Maryadit of which the petitioner claims to be a representative i. e. The aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak sangh Ltd. , as an voter.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that The aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak sangh Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the "zilla sangh". is a member of an apex society i. e. the maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Doodh mahasangh Maryadit. Elections to the managing Committee in the year 2005 are to be held. The Zilla Sangh being a society can only cast its vote through a representative nominated in accordance with the Maharashtra specified Co-operative Societies Elections to committees Rules, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the "rules". The voters list contains names of the society as a voter as also the name of the representative.

( 4 ) ON 15. 4. 2005, a Resolution was passed in favour of one Vilas Chavan, the respondent no. 7, authorising him to act as their representative. Thereafter, another resolution dated 24. 5. 2005 was passed in his favour for the same purpose. Then, on 9. 6. 2005 came the resolution in dispute. Apparently, the Zilla sangh changed its representative. Instead of vilas Chavan, it purported to nominate the petitioner Pundalik Kaje as their representative. They communicated the name to the Collector. The Collector sought the opinion from the deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, aurangabad and Mumbai. After obtaining their opinion, he passed the order which is impugned in this Writ Petition. He observed that there was no subject as regards the change of representative or delegate and in spite of that, according to him, the name of the delegate has been changed in the meeting dated 9. 6. 2005. He, therefore, rejected the petitioners request for being included as a delegate entitled to cast his vote.

( 5 ) MR. Jahagirdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that having regard to the scheme of the Rules, in particular rule 5, a society is entitled to change the name of its delegate earlier than seven days prior to the last date appointed by the Collector under rule 16 for making nomination. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the Collector is bound to take cognizance of this change since the change is being made much earlier than seven days before the last date for making nominations. In fact, the election programme cannot be declared under rule 16 prior to 27. 7. 2005. This, according to the learned counsel, is in view of the fact that rule 16 of the Maharashtra specified Co-operative Societies Elections to committees Rules, 1971 requires the District deputy Registrar to draw election programme "not earlier than thirty days of the date of display of the final list of voters of a society under rule 7. " According to the learned counsel, since the final list of voters has been published on 27. 6. 2005, the stages of elections under rule 16 cannot be announced before 27. 7. 2005. The thrust of the submission is, therefore, that the collector is under an obligation to consider a the change in the name of the delegate. There is sufficient time to do so and the acceptance of the change would be in accordance with rule 5 as interpreted by this Court in a judgment dated 2. 5. 2001 in Shri. Suresh Ramchandra palande Vs. Shri. Balasaheb Manik Farate (Letters Patent Appeal No. 175 of 1997 ). Therefore, according to the learned counsel, mandamus must issue directing the Collector to consider the change of name.

( 6 ) MR. Jahagirdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the observations of the Supreme Court for this purpose in Union of India Vs. S. B. Vohra ( (2004)2 SCC 150) wherein their Lord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document