JUDGMENT :- The petitioners are challenging order dated 6-6-2006 passed by respondent No.1 Hon'bIe Minister permitting amendment to the byelaw of respondent No.4 Society and subsequent order dated 7-6-2006 passed by respondent No. 5 Election Officer staying the election programme until further orders or till declaration of fresh election programme according to amended byelaws. This Court on 20-6-2006 while issuing notice indicated to parties that petition would be disposed off at admission stage. On that day this Court also granted ad-interim relief and directed maintenance of status quo as on that day. It appears that respondent No.5, practicing advocate misinterpreted this interim order as permitting him to proceed further and hence, grievance was made in that respect before this Court. On 27-6-2006 this Court passed order on CA 3708/2006 and only because the learned AGP communicated about resignation tendered by Election Officer, though this Court found course adopted by respondent No.5 to be objectionable, it did not take any further steps against him in the matter. On 13-7-2006, this Court clarified that its order of status quo would not come in way of respondent No.3 in accepting resignation of Election Officer. Petitioner thereafter has moved CA 5203/2006 pointing out events which transpired after filing of writ petition. He states that as per election programme published by respondent No. 5 voting was scheduled on 10-6-2006 but before that, after the stage of scrutiny of nomination papers and its withdrawal, two candidates namely Shri Zade and Shri Patil were found to have been elected unopposed from constituencies meant for other backward class candidates and for ex-members of Zilla Parishad. In this background, on 19-6-2006, respondent No.5 published fresh or new election programme as per amended provisions of bye laws and hence petitioners wanted to include prayer for quashing of said election programme. In this background, parties have been heard finally on merits presuming that amendment has been allowed. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Admittedly all petitioners are members of respondent No. 4 Cooperative Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (MCS Act) and are retired/ex-employees of Zilla Parishad Akola. The term of its executive committee is five years and its executive committee consist of total 15 members. 7 members are to be elected from various reserved categories while remaining 8 are elected - 1 from amongst ex-employees of Zilla Parishad, 1 from amongst ex-councillors of Zilla Parishad while 3 each from amongst existing employees and existing councillors of Zilla Parishad. In present petition, we are not concerned with 7 members but with election of 8 and their constituency. 6600 is the number of ex-employees and present employees of the Zilla Parishad who are members of respondent No. 4 Society. Only 4 persons are members from category of ex members/councillors of Zilla Parishad and there are no continuing councillors or present councillors as members. By amendment to bye-laws, otherwise four different constituencies from which the 8 persons are to be elected are now clubbed together into 2 constituencies. Thus as per amendment 4 committee members are to be elected from constituency of ex and existing employees of Zilla Parishad. Similarly 4 committee members are to be elected from constituency of ex and existing councillors of the Zilla Parishad.

3. Elections to executive committee ought to have been held on 22-2-2002 and the same were not held. Hence, on 3-7-2002 respondent No. 3 sought explanation from respondent No. 4 as to why action under section 73H(2) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act should not be taken. Decision to hold elections was then taken by executive committee on 20-5-2002 proposing to hold elections but it was only to avoid Administrator. Co-operative department appointed one person as Election Officer and influential group in respondent No. 4 re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document