1. The petitioner is a director and member of the managing committee of the respondent No. 4/Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Society Limited, Dhoksal, Tq. Mantha. The said respondent No. 4/primary society is a member of the respondent No. 3 specified cooperative society i. e. the Jalna District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. The elections for the managing committee of the respondent No. 3 specified society are declared. The petitioner was a delegatee of the respondent No. 4 primary society for election of the managing committee of the respondent No. 3 specified society. The petitioner filled in his nomination form as a delegatee of the respondent No. 4 primary society for the said election of the managing committee of the respondent No. 3 specified society from the economically weaker section. The nomination paper of the petitioner came to be rejected at the time of scrutiny by the respondent No. 2/Election Officer on the ground that the petitioner is representing the respondent No. 4/primary society which is a defaulter of respondent No. 3 specified society. The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1 who also dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner is a director of the respondent No. 4 primary society. The said respondent No. 4 primary society is a defaulter of respondent No. 3 specified society and as such, is disqualified for being director of respondent No. 3 specified society. The petitioner assails the said order in the present writ petition.

2. Shri Bagal, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that :

a. It was erroneous on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hold that the petitioner is disqualified in view of Section 73EA of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (heareinafter called as "Act of 1960" for brevity) from contesting the election for the managing committee of the respondent No. 3 specified society as a delegatee of the respondent No. 4 primary society.

b. The petitioner is a director of respondent No. 4 primary society and is not an "office bearer" of the said society. It is only the "office bearer" of a defaulting primary agricultural cooperative credit society who is disqualified from becoming a director of the District Central Cooperative Bank. The petitioner being a director of primary society cannot come within the ambit and purview of the term "office bearer".

c. "Office bearer" would be a person who holds an office, such as Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, etc. and mere member or a director of a managing committee of the said primary society cannot be included in the definition of "office bearer".

d. The Act does not define the term "office bearer", as such the plain meaning of the word "office bearer" will have to be taken into consideration and it would not include a director or a member of the managing committee.

e. The authorities have in casual manner dealt with the issue and have relied on the definition of an officer while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner being a director would be an office bearer. The authorities have failed to make distinction between the term officer and office bearer.

3. Shri Dighe, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the director would come within the ambit and purview of the term "office bearer" of the primary agricultural cooperative credit society.

4. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the provisions relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues raised by the petitioner and involved in the petition.

The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960

1. .................... 2(20) "officer" means a person elected or appointed by a society to any office of such society according to its bylaws; and includes a chairman, vice chairman, president, vice president, managing director, manager, secretary, treasurer, member of the committee and any ot