1. By these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order of respondent no.2 / Election Officer, accepting nomination paper of respective respondent no.4 for the purposes of general election of respondent no.3 / Cooperative Society. It is not in dispute that the said Society is registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1960"). The respondent no.1 in both the matters is the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary in Cooperation and Textile Department. The respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No. 251/2011 has submitted her nomination for post reserved for woman, while respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No. 257/2011 is contesting election for open post.

2. Looking to the nature of controversy and earlier orders passed, the respective Counsel have been heard finally by making Rule returnable forthwith.

3. Advocate, Shri D.J. Choudhari, appearing for the petitioner, has stated that respondent no.3 is a Notified Society and scrutiny of nomination papers has been conducted on 10-1-2011. In that scrutiny, petitioner raised objection and pointed out that respondent no.4 is defaulter as contemplated by Section 73FF(1)(i) and hence, is not eligible to contest the election. That objection has been rejected after holding payment of loan arrears effected on 8-1-2011 as valid. It is his contention, that 7-1-2011 was the last date prescribed for filing of nomination papers and hence payment made thereafter cannot have the effect of curing the status as defaulter. He has relied upon the judgment delivered by me at Nagpur Bench and reported at 2006(3) Bom.C.R. 359, in the case of Ravi Amrutrao Bagde Vs. Commissioner & others. He has further urged that unnecessarily a confusion about the nature of loan availed is being created and he points out loan disbursed to respondent no. 4 is for maintenance of cotton and as per amended loan policy for the year 2009-10, it could have been disbursed up to 31st March 2010. It was repayable by 28-5-2010.

4. Shri V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4, has raised various objections. His first contention is, the matter must be filed before Division Bench of this Court and the Single Judge has no jurisdiction in this respect. He states that view taken by me at Nagpur and reported at 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 771, in the case of Jagannath Pandharinath Rewaskar and others Vs. Minister of State for Cooperation and others, is looked into by another Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 875/2010 at Aurangabad (Hanumant Ramchandra Yadav and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) and vide order dated 23rd June 2010, it has been held that such challenge against the order of Returning Officer / Election Officer must be placed before Division Bench as that order cannot be read as a quasi judicial order. For the same purpose, he has also relied upon order dated 27th August 2002 delivered by the learned Single Judge at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 2622/2002 (Ishwar Bhagwan Gaikwad and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others).

5. His next contention is, the respondent no.3 / Society is not a Notified Society. According to him, it is a simple or general Society and hence election to it is regulated only by its bye-laws. Therefore, the view taken at Aurangabad(supra) is squarely attracted here. To substantiate this contention, he has relied upon the order dated 6th September 2001 issued by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar at Pune. His contention is, whenever share capital of a Notified Society exceeds Rs. 10,00,000/-, total 17 posts of Directors become admissible and election, therefore, has to be for 17 posts. Here, election is only for 13 posts and hence respondent no.4 is not a Notified Society. He has also invited attention to order of appointment of Election Officer, being pressed into service by the petitioner, and dated 27-1