MUKESH ZANAKA PASERKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. Vyawahare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Sonare, learned AGP for respondent No.l, Shri. Morande, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri. Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondents No,3 & 4.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of Respondent No.2 dated 03.02.2010 rejecting his objection to Election programme of Respondent No.3 Society as published on 02.01.2010. The contention of the petitioner is that until and unless all contesting candidates deposited the necessary amount as per the circular dated 01.09.2007 issued by Commissioner & Registrar for Co-operation and for that purpose the Bye-laws of Respondent No.3 society are amended, the elections cannot be permitted to take place. This Court has on 16.02.2010 issued notice and vide order dated 04.03.2010 the elections are permitted to proceed further but the same have been subject to further orders in the matter. Accordingly, after hearing parties, writ petition came to be admitted on 23.03.2010 and it has been thereafter listed for final hearing.

(3.) The Circular dated 01.09.2007 is not in dispute. According to Shri. Vyawahare, learned counsel, by the impugned order, Respondent No.2 - Election/Returning Officer has held that circular is not applicable to Respondent No.3 - Society and hence there was no need to either amend the bye-laws or to hold elections after compliance with that circular. He points out that RespondentNo.3 - society is a Urban Credit Co-operative Society and hence the circular is applicable to it fully. According to him, defence that the society is not Urban Credit Co-operative Society, but a Salary Earners' Society and, therefore, circular is not applicable to it, is artificial and unsustainable. He has invited attention to relevant provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) particularly to Rule 10 of 1961 Rules framed under the said Act with contention that classification or categorization of societies as per said rule is only illustrative and not exhaustive. He has also urged that the last column i.e. column No.3 of table mentioned in Rule 10 clearly reveals the intention to govern all societies of type stipulated therein by same law and the description of societies therein cannot be treated as determinative for the purposes of application of said circular. He has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baburao Vs. Brihmadeo,1980 MhLJ 75, for this purpose.