V. G. PALSHIKAR, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 56-B of the Maharashtra Cooperative societies Rules, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the "rules" for the purpose of brevity) on the ground that the provisions of that rule are contrary to the provisions of section 27 (34) of the Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the "act" for the purpose of brevity ).

( 2 ) THE facts necessary for adjudication of the questions raised in this petition stated in brief are: the respondent No. 3 Wakadi Vikas karyakari Society Limited, Wakadi, Taluka rahata District Ahmednagar is a notified society as contemplated by section 73ic of the Act. It will be called as a notified society for the purpose of clarity and brevity. The petitioner became a Member of the notified society on 27-3-2002 and since then he is the member of the notified society.

( 3 ) THE last general elections to the managing Committee of the notified society were held on 28-5-1999. Consequently, the term of five years of the said Managing committee came to an end on 27-5-2004. As required by Rule 56-B of the Rules, a list of voters was liable to be prepared and was accordingly prepared but it did not show the name of the petitioner as one of the voters. Queries revealed that the petitioner was not so shown because of the Government Circular dated 23-7-2003, according to which, the petitioner did not complete the prescribed period as mentioned in rule 56-B of the Rules. Being aggrieved by the action of non-inclusion of his name in the voters list which has defeated his statutory right, the above writ petition was filed by the petitioner. The validity of Rule 56-B of the Rules was challenged as it is contrary to the provisions of section 27 (3-A) of the Act.

( 4 ) WHEN this petition came up for hearing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Rule 56-B are liable to be quashed as they are ultra vires or contrary to the provisions of section 27 (3-A) of the Act. He was also fair enough in pointing out that there is a Division bench judgment in Writ Petition No. 3730 of 2003 decided on 17-11-2003 in which it is held that the period of 120 days mentioned in Rule 56-B (2) of the Rules is liable to be calculated in addition to the period of two years mentioned in Section 27 (3-A) of the Act.

( 5 ) A Division Bench of this Court, which heard this petition, was unable to agree with the view taken by the earlier Division bench with the result that the matter was placed before My Lord, the Honourable the chief Justice for appropriate orders for referring the matter to a Larger Bench.

( 6 ) WE have heard Shri. P. M. Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner alongwith his instructing advocates, the learned Assistant Government pleader for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and also the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3. The factual aspect in this case as narrated above is not disputed. However, the division Bench while making this reference did not frame any question for being answered by a Larger Bench. In our opinion, it would be better if the specific questions are framed which should be answered by this Bench so as to lay down correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 27 (3-A) and Rule 56-B of the Rules. In our opinion, the following questions would meet the challenges levelled against the provisions as mentioned above. (I) What is the date upto which a person/member is required to complete two years to be eligible for inclusion of his name in the voters list prepared under rule 56-B of the Rules ? (ii) How the period of two years mentioned in section 27- (3-A) as the period of eligibility is to be counted ? (iii) Whether the period of 120 days mentioned in Rule 56-B is liable to be calculated in addition to the period of two years as mentioned in section 27 (3-A) of the Act ?we will proceed to analy