JUDGMENT:- Both the petitions involve a common question of law and as such, are decided together.

2. The petitioners are the registered Co-operative Societies registered under the Mabarashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5711/2011 were registered on 31.05.2011 and 09.06.2011, whereas the petitioners'/society in Writ Petition No. 5910/2011 were registered on 06.06.2011.

3. The respondent No. 3 published a notification on or about 01st July, 2011 declaring the election programme for finalization of voters list for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sbrigonda, Dist. Abmednagar under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulations) Act 1963 (hereinafter referred as the "Act of 1963" for the sake of brevity). The voters list was published on 02nd July, 2011. The last date for raising objection was 18.07.2011. The final voters list is to be published on 08th August, 2011. As per the said programme, on 02nd July/, 2011 the voters list pertaining to the Co-operative Societies Constituency came to be published. The names of the petitioner society its members of the managing committee did not appear in the said voters list. The petitioners raised an objection before the respondent No. 3. One Rajendra Nagwade also raised an objection for the inclusion of name of petitioners. The respondent No.3 rejected the objection of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5711/2011 vide its order dated 28.07.2011 and held that the petitioners names cannot be included in the voters list. Whereas, no specific order was passed in respect of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5910/2011. The petitioners have assailed the said orders inthe present writ petitions.

4. Shri S. S. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5711/2011 during the course of his erudiate arguments canvased the following propositions:

a) The cut off date fixed by the Returning Officer was 28.02.2011. It was erroneous on the part of the Returning Officer to reject the application solely on the ground that the petitioners societies were registered after the said date. The Returning Officer did not consider the proviso to Rule 36(2) of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Development and Regulations) Rules 1967 hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1967 for sake of brevity. Proviso to Sub Rule 2 to Rule 36 will have to be read along with other Sub Rules of Rule 36.

b) While interpreting proviso to Sub Rule 2, Sub Rules 10, 11, 14 and 15 cannot be lost sight. The same will have to be considered. Reading of these sub rules of Rule 36, it is clear that the Returning Officer can amend/revise the voters list at any time prior to 3 days of the last date of filing of nomination paper. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Bbatu Devidas Patil and anotber Vs. State of Mabarasbtra and others reported in 2010 (Supp.) Born. C. R 827 : (2010(2) ALL MR 730].

c) The Act does not lay down any prohibition on the right of the societies to take part in the election of the A. P. M. C. from the Co-operative Societies Constituency. It does not lay down any Jock in period. When the statute does not lay down any restriction, then interpreting proviso to Sub Rule 2 of Rule 36 of Rules of 1967 in any other manner so as to enable only those Co-operative Societies registered before the cut off date would not be inconsonance with the right envisaged under the Act in respect of the Co-operative Societies.

d) The word 'may' appearing in proviso to Rule 36(2) of the Rules of 1967 will have to be interpreted as mandatory. The same cast duty on the Returning Officer to revise the list in cases of contingencies such as Co-operative Societies been enrolled after the cut off date The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Ambica Quarry Works, etc. V. State of Gujrat and others reported in AIR 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document