DATTU DNYANU PATIL CHAIRMAN Vs. COLLECTOR DIST SANGLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners here have filed the present writ petition for a direction to quash and set aside the draft voters list published by respondent No 3 and the final voters list published by respondent No. 1 on april 25, 1991. Respondent No. 3 is Sangli District Central Co-operative bank Ltd. , a federal Bank, and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 claim to be the representatives of the respective societies. According to the petitioners, the said societies of which they were the representatives, are the members of respondent No. 3, Bank. It was further contended on behalf of the present petitioners that petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 in fact were selected as representatives for the elections of the Office Bearers of respondent No. 3, Bank. However, their names did not appear in the draft voters list and also in the final list published on April 25, 1991. It was contended on behalf of the present petitioners that respondent No. 1, the Collector, who finalised the list under rule 6 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Election to committee Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules" mala fidely omitted their names at the behest of respondent No. 9, the Minister for co-operation. It was mainly contended on behalf of the petitioners that under Rule 6 sub-rule (4) of the said Rules, when the objections are taken before the Collector, at the time of preparation of the voters list under rule 6, sub-rule (4), mandatory duty cast upon the Collector to decide the objections after considering each one and intimate the decision in writing to the concerned person. The petitioners also contended that in spite of this mandatory duty, respondent No. 1, Collector, failed to give the intimation about the result of the objections taken by the present petitioners. Mr. Rane the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioners contended that since respondent No 1 failed to discharge his due duty under Rule 6 sub-rule (4) the final list dated April 25, 1991 prepared for the election of respondent No. 3 should be set aside and the matter should be remanded back to respondent No. 1, the Collector, for considering the petitioners' names in the voters list.

(2.) MR. Bhimrao N. Naik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,2,4 and 9, and also Mr. C. J. Sawant, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8, objected the petition on preliminary grounds. It was mainly contended that on April 25, 1991 voters list had become final, in view of this election programme of respondent No. 3, Bank, had commenced. It was contended by Mr. Naik as well as Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents, that the writ petition is not maintainable according to certain decisions of the Supreme Court. It was also contended on behalf of the State of maharashtra that in view of the decision of this Court, respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to decide the objections as raised by the present petitioners. The respondents, therefore, pray that the writ petition filed by the present petitioners should be dismissed on these preliminary grounds.

(3.) MR, Rane, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioners contended that Rule 6 lays down the procedure as to how the voters list in respect of specified societies should be prepared. Mr. Rane further contended that after petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were authorised by their respective societies, the petitioners sent their forms and the resolutions of the society for the purpose of including their names in the voters list. At the time of considering the objections about the voters list under Rule 6, sub-rule (4), the petitioners also objected to the inclusion of the names of respondent Nos. 5 to 8, as according to the petitioners, these respondents were not properly authorised by their respective societies. However, according to the petitioners, no decision was taken by respondent No. J about the objections taken by the present petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 and till today no decision is communicated to the petitioners. Mr. Naik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that in fact the objections of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 were considered by respondent No. 1, the Collector, and after considering their objections the said objections were overruled by respondents No. 1 Mr. Naik further contended that through inadvertence the said decision was not communicated to petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. However mr Naik contends that the objections taken by petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were such that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to decide the same. In view of this position, according to him, the petitioners are not entitled to file a writ on the grounds that the decision taken under sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 was not communicated to them by respondent No. 1.