1. Heard finally and rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondent No.1, Shri Deo, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the intervenor.

2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the Election Programme of a notified Cooperative Society by name Chikhali Urban Cooperative Bank published by Respondent No.2 on 09.01.2010 on the ground that it is not in conformity with requirements of Section 73B of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, by additional affidavit, later on defective implementation thereof is also made the bone of contention. Section 73B of the Act provides for reservation of seats on society and it is an admitted position that in Election Programme as published, reservation has not been provided for.

3. The petitioner is a Member of said Cooperative Society and he has filed this petition on 22.01.2010. The elections are regulated by Chapter VA of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioner points out that as per bye laws of society, four seats are reserved and out of those four, one is for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category, one for member belonging to weaker sections and two for women members as per provisions of Section 73B of the Act. The provisions of said section are further amended on 23.04.2001 and added subsections (a1) and (a2) provide one reserved seat each for VJNT category and OBC category. In General Elections now due for tenure 2010 to 2015, the said reservation for VJNT and OBC has not been provided. The petitioner belongs to VJ category and he, therefore, contends that Election programme is wholly vitiated. The next ground is though provisions of Rule 56J of the Rules provided for declaration of various dates and various stages of Election programme and the Election Officer did not take prior approval of competent authority for said purpose. It is contended that had there been such approval, the mistake could not have been there. The Board of Directors consisted of total 16 Directors and out of them 11 are to be elected by members of the society. The relevant bye law No. 29(1) provides that if society has branch/ branches outside the Headquarters beyond 25 kms, three out of such 11 Directors have to be from amongst the members residing in the area served by such branch/ branches. The petitioner argues that there are several such branches beyond 25 kms. From Headquarters and hence eight Directors are to be elected from amongst members while three from such branches. The classification or categorization has not been clearly mentioned in Election programme and it has, therefore, misled the candidates desirous of contesting or then the voters. This has been sought to be demonstrated by filing additional affidavit to show that one member though residing within 25 kms. has opted to contest in such three seats. The last contention is, the corrective measures taken by Respondent No. 2 after filing of this petition are not legal as law does not permit such rectification. The provisions of Rule 56K of the Rules cannot be used to provide an election to constituency not already included in the Election programme.

4. The Society itself has filed Civil Application No. 252 of2010 seeking leave to intervene and I have heard Shri Gupta, learned counsel for intervenor. On 22.01.2010, after noticing the grievance in brief, notice for final disposal was issued and made returnable on 29.01.2010. On 29.01.2010, the matter could not be taken up and learned counsel for Returning Officer has sought leave to publish amended Election programme on 01.02.2010. The request was opposed by the petitioner but in order to save situation from becoming irreversible, the Election Officer was permitted to notify the change o