SANKAPPA DEVJI CHOUGULE Vs. COLLECTOR OF KOLHAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. V. M Parashuram for respondent No. 1, mr. M. L. Patil for respondent No. 2 and Mr. R. V. More for respondent no. 3 waive service. By consent of parties Rule heard forthwith. Heard all parties. The petitioner No. 2 is a cooperative society and is member of the gaphinglaj Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. The respondent No. 2 i. e the said Karkhana is an apex Co-operative Society. The petitioner No. 2 is a member of the said society and as such a member entitled to send its representative for the purpose of casting its vote in the election which was scheduled to be held in September 1993. As per the original programme published by the Collector draft voters list was published on 6th July 1993. It is the contention of the petitioners that asper rule 5 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Rules, the society is supposed to pass a resolution authorising a person to vote on behalf of the society. It is further the case of the petitioners that the name of respondent no. 3. Tanaji Mahadik was unauthorisedly sent to the Collector under the purported resolution passed by the society and the Collector entered the name of the respondent No. 3 as voter-representative on behalf of the petitioner No 2. It is the case of the petitioners that by a subsequent resolution properly passed by the cooperative society the name of petitioner no. 1 was nominated, to the Collector as voter-representative on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 society. It appears that the Collector had declined to take cognizance of the subsequent resolution inasmuch as both parties vehemently disputed the legality and validity of each others resolutions and the Collector felt that he cannot adjudicate upon the legality of the resolutions.

(2.) UNDER these circumstances the petitioners have prayed that the collector be ordered to enter the name of the petitioner No. 1 as representative of the petitioner No. 2 society in the ensuing elections of the respondent No. 2 society.

(3.) SO far as the rival contentions are concerned Shri Kanade submitted that the resolution purported to have been passed by the society sponsoring the name of respondent No. 3 Tanaji Mahadik was not at all passed lawfully. The meeting was not held at the proper place. Even the recording of the minutes was not in the official records but some special recording was made for the said occasion in different book. Shri Kanade further submitted that in any case under sub-rule (2) of rule 5 it is competent for the society to change the name of its delegate not later than 7 days before the date appointed by the Collector under rule 16 of the said Rules for making nomination. Shri Kanade submits that inasmuch as by a subsequent resolution the name of petitioner No. 1 was suggested and inasmuch as under the amended election programme, last date for filing of the nomination papers is 15th October 1993, the nomination regarding change in the name of the delegate is not later than 7 days before the date appointed by the Collector under rule 16 for making nomination and as such the Collector was duty bound to include the name of the petitioner No. 1 as representative voter on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 in supersession to the inclusion of respondent No. 3's name.