JUDGMENT - B.M. SAPRE, J.:---By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seek to set aside the order dated October 1,1973 passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the application of the petitioners to delete the names of respondents No. 3 to 47 from the Voters List and the further order dated October 3, 1973 stated to have been passed by respondent No. 2 fixing the programme of election; and further directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to delete the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 47 from the List of Voters. Respondent No. 1 Shri Ganesh Sahakhari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Ganeshnagar, Taluka Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, is a co-operative sugar factory registered as a society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Respondent No. 2 is the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 47 are members of respondent No. 1. Election of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1 was due in the latter part of the year 1973. By his order dated August 13, 1973, the Collector published a programme for finalising the voters list for the election of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1. A provisional list of voters containing the names of all the members of respondent No. 1 and was sent to the Collector. The provisional list was published on the Notice Board of September 10, 1973 stating therein that if there were any objections to the Voters List, those objections should be filed before respondent No. 2 on or before September 21, 1973. The petitioners filed objections to the voters list on September 21, 1973 before respondent No. 2 stating that respondent Nos. 3 to 47 were defaulters and therefore, under the provisions of bye-law No. 12 of the Bye-laws adopted by respondent No. 1, they were not entitled to exercise any rights or privileges of a member which included the right to vote. Respondent No. 2 sought information from respondent No. 1 on the question whether respondents Nos. 3 to 47 were defaulters and respondent No. 1 confirmed that respondents Nos. 3 to 47 were defaulters. Under bye-laws No. 12, therefore, according to the petitioners, it was the duty of respondent No. 2 to delete the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 47 from the final list of voters. 3 to 47 were defaulters and respondent No. 1 confirmed that respondents Nos. 3 to 47 were defaulters. Under bye-laws No. 12, therefore, according to the petitioners, it was the duty of respondent No. 2 to delete the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 47 from the final list of voters. Respondents No. 2, however, failed to delete the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 47 while finalising the list of voters on the ground that under the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", all those persons who were members of respondent No. 1 on June 30, 1973 were entitled to be on the list of voters. Respondent No. 2 accordingly overruled the objections raised by the petitioners to the inclusion of the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 47 in the final list of voters by his order dated October 1, 1973 and, by an order dated October 3, 1973, he fixed the programme for the election of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1. According to that programme, the election was to be held on November 15, 1973, the counting of votes was to take place on the following day and the result were to be announced immediately after the counting was over. The present petition was filed on October 16, 1973 in which stay of the election programme was sought. No interim relief, however, was granted by this Court, with the result that the election took place on November 15, 973 as scheduled and the results were announced in due course. We are told at the hearing of the petition that the 2nd petitioner along with two others have now filed an election petition under section 144-T of the Act on December 28, 1973 and it is pending. At the hearing of the petition, on behalf of the petitioners, an application for amendment of the petition was made. By this amendment application a point of law was sought to be raised that the impugned orders dated October 1, 1973 and October 3, 1973 passed by respondent No. 2 were without jurisdiction or authority, because under the Act and the Rules it was only the Collector and not an Additional Collector who could pass those orders. By this amendment application a point of law was sought to be raised that the impugned orders dated October 1, 1973 and October 3, 1973 passed by respondent No. 2 were without jurisdiction or authority, because under the Act and the Rules it was only the Collector and not an Additional Collector who could pass those orders. We allowed this point to be raised by way of amendment as it raised only the question of want of jurisdiction in respondent No. 2 to pass the impugned orders. Mr. Paranjape, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, raised only two contentions before us :--- (1) It was only the Collector and not respondent No. 2 as Additional Collector who was competent to decide the objections raised by the petitioners against the inclusion of the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 47 in the list of voters and hence the order dated October 1, 1973 passed by respondent No. 2 was without jurisdiction. (2) Merely because respondents Nos. 3 to 47 were members of respondent No. 1 society as on June 30, 1973, they could not be included in the final voters list, ignoring disqualification mentioned in bye-law No. 12. Respondent No. 2 who had not gone into the objections raised by the petitioners, which he was required to go into under Rule 6 of the Rules, had thus failed to exercise the jurisdiction which vested in him under the said Rule. As against the above two contentions raised by Mr. Paranjape in support of the petition. Mr. B.R. Naik for respondents 1, 4 and 18 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition itself. The preliminary objection raised by him was as follows :--- The question whether certain persons were wrongly included in the list of voters is a question which arises in the process of election (or is just a stage in the whole process of election) and, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in (Madhukar Ganpatrao v. Sheshrao)1, 73 Bom.L.R. 720 which in turn had relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, such a question cannot be raised until the election is held and, therefore, only by means of an election petition and no writ petition lies to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an intermediate stage of the election. The present writ petition, which merely seeks to challenge the orders passed by respondent No. 2 at an intermediate stage of the election, is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine. We prefer to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Naik before going into the contentions raised by Mr. Paranjape. In order to understand the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Naik, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1 is a co-operative sugar factory and is registered as a society under the Act. The election to which the dispute relates is of members of the committee of management of respondent No. 1 society. Section 73 of the Act deals with the committee, its powers and functions and it reads as under :--- "73. The management of every society shall vest in a committee, constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and by-laws, which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed respectively by this Act, the rules and the by-laws." Section 73-G(1) provides that the election of the members of the committees of the societies of the categories mentioned therein shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XI-A and shall be conducted in the manner laid down by or under that Chapter. The category of a society mentioned in Clause (v) is "all Co-operative Sugar Factories". Section 2(7) of the Act defines "committee" as meaning the committee of management, or other directing body, to which the management of the affairs of a society is entrusted. Chapter XI-A deals with elections to certain society and section 144-A makes it clear that the Chapter shall apply only to elections to committees of societies belonging to the categories specified in section 73-G. Section 144-T occurring in this Chapter makes provision for submitting disputes relating to elections to the Commissioner. Sub-section (1) says that notwithstanding anything contained in section 91 or any other provisions of the Act. Any dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Commissioner of the Division is which such election is held. Sub-section (2) states that such reference may be made by an aggrieved party by presenting an election petition to the Commissioner within a period of two months from the date of declaration of the result of the election. Any dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Commissioner of the Division is which such election is held. Sub-section (2) states that such reference may be made by an aggrieved party by presenting an election petition to the Commissioner within a period of two months from the date of declaration of the result of the election. Section 144-X, Occuring in this Chapter, makes provision for making rules for purposes of the Chapter. The section reads as under :--- "144-X. Without prejudice to any other power to make rules contained elsewhere in this Act, the State Government may make rules consistent with this Act generally to provide for and to regulate all or any of the other matters relating to the various stages of the elections." Section 165 of the Act, which falls outside Chapter XI-A, Contains the general rule making power in the State Government for the conduct and regulation of the business of any society or class of societies, which under section 2(7) means a co-operative society registered under the Act, and for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Turning to the Rules, the preamble shows that they are made in exercise of the powers conferred, inter alia, by section 144-X and section 165 of the Act. The title of the Rules is The Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Society Elections to Committees Rules, 1971. Rule 2 gives the definitions and Rule 2(e) defines "List of Voters" meaning the list of voters as finalised in accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 6. Rule 4 deals with the provisional list of voters and it is as under :--- "4. Provisional list of voters. (1) A provisional list of voters shall be prepared by every society for the year in which general election is due to be held. Person as who are members as on the 30th June of the year immediately preceding the year in which such election is due shall be included in the provisional list. If different constituencies are provided in the bye-laws, the names of voters shall be arranged constituency-wise as laid down in the bye-laws. (2) Four copies of the authenticated provisional lists of voters shall be sent by every society to the Collector, through the District Deputy Registrar so as to reach the Collector by the 15th July of the year in which the general election is due. (2) Four copies of the authenticated provisional lists of voters shall be sent by every society to the Collector, through the District Deputy Registrar so as to reach the Collector by the 15th July of the year in which the general election is due. Copies of the said list shall be displayed on the notice board of the society, the District Deputy Registrar and the Collector by the 20th July of that year for inviting claims and objections. (3) If any society fails to send copies of the provisional list of voters to the Collector, through the District Deputy Registrar, by the 15th July the Collector shall himself or through any person authorised by him in this behalf prepare a provisional list of voters, and the expenditure incurred therefore shall be recovered from the society as arrears of land revenue. (4) In the event of the Collector taking action under the last preceding sub-rule, he shall also cause copies of the provisional list of voters to be displayed on his notice-board and on the notice board of the District Deputy Registrar and the society by the 23rd July for inviting claims and objections." Rules 5 deals with particulars to be included in the provisional list of voters. Rule 6 deals with claims and objections to the provisional list of voters and it is as under :--- "6(1). Claims and objections to provisional list of voters---When any provisional list of voters is published for inviting claims and objections, any omission or error in respect of the name or address or other particulars in the list may be brought to the notice of the Collector by any member of the society concerned who is a voter or any delegate authorised to vote on behalf of such society. (2) Every person making a claim or raising an objection shall do so by a separate petition, which shall be presented to the Collector on or before the 31st July, during office hours. (3) Every claim or objection shall be preferred in writing and state the grounds on which the claim is based or the objection is raised, as the case may be. (4) The Collector shall, after considering each claim or objection, give his decision thereon in writing to the person concerned before the 10th August and take steps to correct the provisional list wherever necessary. (4) The Collector shall, after considering each claim or objection, give his decision thereon in writing to the person concerned before the 10th August and take steps to correct the provisional list wherever necessary. The list as finalised by the Collector after deciding all claims and objections shall be the final list of voters." Rule 81 lays down the grounds for declaring election to be void, the relevant portion of which is as follows :--- "81. Grounds for declaring election to be void.---If the Commissioner is of opinion--- (a) ... ... ... ... (b) ... ... ... ... (c) ... ... ... ... (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected--- (i) ... ... ... ... (ii) ... ... ... ... (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder, the Commissioner shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. It will thus be seen that the election of the Board of Management of respondent No. 1 society, which fell in one of the categories mentioned in section 73-G (1) of the Act, was to be held as provided in Chapter XI-A in which section 144-X occurs and under which the State Government was empowered to make rules to provide for and to regulate matters relating to the various stages of the election. It will be seen from the Rules that the preparation of the provisional list of voters, the raising of claims and objections to the provisional list of voters and the consideration of those claims and objection by the Collector and finalising the list of voters, all occur in the Rules which cover the entire process of election. Under Rule 3, the District Deputy Registrar, by the 5th day of April every year, has to report to the Collector the names and addresses of the societies in his District, in which elections are to be held during the year under the provisions of section 73-G read with Chapter XI-A. Thereafter occur Rules 4, 5 and 6. Rule 7 provides for the displaying, on the notice board, of the final list of voters. Rule 9 deals with the appointment of Returning Officers. Rule 7 provides for the displaying, on the notice board, of the final list of voters. Rule 9 deals with the appointment of Returning Officers. Rule 10 deals with the appointment of Assistant Returning Officers. Rule 12 deals with making provision for polling stations. Rule 13 deals with the appointment of Presiding Officers and Polling Officers. Rule 16 deals with the appointment of dates, etc. for various stages of elections, such as, the last date for making nominations, publications of nominations, scrutiny of nominations, publication of the list of valid nominations, the date by which nominations may be withdrawn, the date of publication of the final list of contesting candidates, the date of poll, the date of counting of votes and the date of declaration of the results of voting. The Rules thus make provision for the entire process of election and this process, by virtue of the Rules, includes the stage of preparation of provisional list of voters, raising of claims and objections to the provisional list of voters and decision of those claims and objections and thereafter making the final list of voters. This important feature must be borne in mind. Turning to the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Naik, the facts in (Madhukar Ganpatrao v. Sheshrao)1, 73 Bom.L.R. 720 were these. Opponent No. 6 was a Federal Co-operative Society registered under the Act. 124 Co-operative Societies were affiliated as members to the said Federal Society. The Managing Committee of the Fedral Society consisted of 8 members, two of whom were to be nominated and the remaining six were to be elected. The election to the Managing Committee of the Fedral Society was scheduled to be held on September 16, 1967, nominations were to be submitted on or before September 2,1967, scrutiny of the nomination papers was to be held on September 4, 1967, and after scrutiny the list of candidates contesting the election was published on September 8, 1967. On September 14, 1967, i.e., two days prior to the date of the election, respondent No. 1 submitted an application to the District Registrar contending that the procedure preceding the election was not properly followed. One of the grievances raised was that although some of the member societies were disqualified, they were allowed to contest the election. On September 14, 1967, i.e., two days prior to the date of the election, respondent No. 1 submitted an application to the District Registrar contending that the procedure preceding the election was not properly followed. One of the grievances raised was that although some of the member societies were disqualified, they were allowed to contest the election. The application was heard by the Registrars nominee and by his order dated April 15, 1968 he granted the application of respondent No. 1 and rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner Madhukar Ganpatrao Somevanshi and respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The Division Bench was of the view that the application field by respondent No. 1 on September 14, 1967 was untenable and it was wrongly entertained by the Registrars nominee. The Division Bench relied upon certain observations of the Supreme Court in the decision in (N. B. Khare v. Election Commission of India)2, 13 Election Law Reports 112. Those observations were that all disputes relating to any stage of the entire election process can be canvassed by an election petition presented after the election is concluded. It followed from these observations that wrong acceptance or rejection of a nomination paper can be made a ground of attack only after the result of the election is declared and not at any stage prior to that. The Division Bench also relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in (N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency)3, (1952) S. C. R. 218. In that case, the appellant, who was a candidate for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madras and whose nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer, applied to the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper and to direct the Returning Officer to include his name in the list of valid nominations to be published. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant. That order was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the word "election" means the entire process of election and any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election can be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special Tribunal and cannot be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. The Supreme Court observed that the word "election" means the entire process of election and any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election can be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special Tribunal and cannot be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. Of course, in two out of the above three cases, the dispute was regarding the rejection or a acceptance of a nomination paper, which undoubtedly is a stage in the entire process of election, and in none of those cases any dispute arose as to the persons entitled to vote, whereas the present is a case of a dispute as to who were entitled to vote at the election. Could that be considered a stage in the process of election ? Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the question of finalisation of electoral rolls is a pre-election stage, in the sense that it is a stage which is a already complete before the process of election commences under that Act. That is for the reason that the electoral rolls are prepared and finalised under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 which provides a complete procedure and machinery for raising and deciding claims and objections as also for appeals. The electoral rolls are thus finalised under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and no dispute in that behalf can survive as to the commencement of the election process under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. But in the present case, under the Rules, as we have pointed out, the various stages of the election process have been provided by the Rules and Rules 4, 5 and 6, which deal with the list of voters and provide machinery for deciding claims and objections and for finalising the list of voters, form part of the election process. But in the present case, under the Rules, as we have pointed out, the various stages of the election process have been provided by the Rules and Rules 4, 5 and 6, which deal with the list of voters and provide machinery for deciding claims and objections and for finalising the list of voters, form part of the election process. In this view of the matter, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court will apply and it must be held that the question raised by this petition that respondents 3 to 47 were wrongly included in the voters list arose in the process of election (or was just a stage in the whole process of election) and that question could not be raised until the election was held and thereafter only by means of an election petition and no writ petition lies to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge that intermediate stage of election. The present writ petition, which merely seeks to challenge the order passed by respondent No. 2 at an intermediate stage of election, is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. Naik must, therefore, prevail and this petition must be dismissed. In the view we take, it is not necessary to deal with the contentions raised by Mr. Paranjape in support of the petition. But although the contentions raised by Mr. Paranjape do not survive, in our view, it is necessary to make certain observations regarding the second contention. The question is whether, if under bye-law No. 12 respondents Nos. 3 to 47 had lost their right to vote, could the Collector refuse to consider under Rule 6 the objection raised by the petitioners and to delete the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 47 from the final list of voters, which he had to prepare under Rule 6, merely on the ground that since they were members of respondent No. 1 society on June 30, 1973 and were as such on the provisional list of voters, they were entitled to be shown in the final voters list also. The need to make the observations is that in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. The need to make the observations is that in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1101 and 2271 of 1974, decided on December 6/7/10, 1974, an impression is likely to be created in the mind of the Collector that he has no power under Rule 6 to delete the names of members who are defaulters and who lose their right to vote in view of bye-law No. 12 and he has to show all the names in the final list of voters whose names appear in the list of members and consequently in the provisional list of voters. Indeed, this was also the argument on the other side when Mr. Paranjape made his submissions on his second contention. It is true that the Division Bench in the said two cases that has interpreted Rules 4, 5 and 6, but that in interpretation must be confined to the aspect of the matter that the Bench was considering. Under Rule 1(1), a provisional list of voters has to be prepared by the society for the year in which general election is due to be held and persons who are members as on the 30th June of the year immediately preceding the year in which the election is due have to be included in the provisional list. The objection that was raised in the cases before the previous Division Bench was that for certain reasons certain members were not entitled to be members of the society and as a corollary to their being not entitled to remain as members of the society, they could not be shown in the provisional list of voters and if the society had shown them on the list of members and, therefore, in the provisional list of voters, the Collector should go into the question whether those persons were entitled to be shown as members on the register of members of the society. The main challenge to the eligibility of the persons to be voters was thus on the ground that they were not entitled to be members of the society. The Division Bench observed that this enquiry was beyond the purview of Rule 6. The matter to be considered in the present case is quite different. The main challenge to the eligibility of the persons to be voters was thus on the ground that they were not entitled to be members of the society. The Division Bench observed that this enquiry was beyond the purview of Rule 6. The matter to be considered in the present case is quite different. Respondents 3 to 47 were members of respondent No. 1 society and their names appeared in the register of members maintained by respondent No. 1 society. Respondent No. 1 society had, therefore, to show them in the provisional list of voters which it had prepared. The application of the petitioners to the Collector was not that respondents Nos. 3 to 47 were not entitled to be members of respondent No. 1 society and, as a corollary to that, they could not be shown in the list of Voters. They did not dispute that respondents No. 3 to 47 were members of respondent No. 1 society, and respondent No. 1 society had no option but to show their names in the provisional list of Voters. Their contention was that even though respondents Nos. 3 to 47 were members of the society, in view of bye-laws No. 12, they had lost their right of voting and, therefore, the Collector should delete their names from the final list of voters though they continued to be members. The previous Division Bench did not consider the scope of Rule 6 in this aspect of the matter. It considered it only from the point of view whether, in the course of a summary enquiry under Rule 6, the Collector could go into a detailed enquiry whether certain persons were not entitled to become or remain members of the society and consequently, they could not be included in the list of voters. In our view, an objection of the present kind by the petitioners had to be gone into even in the summary enquiry contemplated by Rule 6. To interpret the rule contrary to the view we have expressed would mean that persons who had no right of vote will exercise their right of vote and this mischief will remain unrectified till the end. Bye-laws No. 12 clearly shows that a defaulter member cannot exercise any right of members which naturally includes the right to vote. To interpret the rule contrary to the view we have expressed would mean that persons who had no right of vote will exercise their right of vote and this mischief will remain unrectified till the end. Bye-laws No. 12 clearly shows that a defaulter member cannot exercise any right of members which naturally includes the right to vote. If the Collector does not delete the names of the members from the final list of voters, who have lost the right of vote under bye-laws No. 12, those persons will vote at the election. It is true that under the Rule 81, a question can be raised in an election petition before the Commissioner that certain persons who had no right of vote had voted at the election and the aggrieved person may be able to establish that certain persons who had no right of vote had voted at the election. But that alone may not possibly give any relief to the aggrieved person. Under sub-clause (iii) of Clause (d) of Rule 81, an election can be set aside if there has been improper reception of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void. Under sub-clause (iv) of Clause (d) of Rule 81, the election can also be set aside for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder. But even if the aggrieved person is able to prove that there was improper reception of any vote or the reception of any vote which was void or certain provisions of the Act or the Rules were not complied with, in order to succeed in his petition, he has to further prove that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, had been materially affected because of the above breaches. This might be difficult or even impossible to prove in view of the secrecy of the ballot and non-identifiability of a ballot paper with the voter who had cast a particular vote. Unless, therefore, the Collector makes an enquiry under Rule 6 in order to give effect to bye-law No. 12 so that the persons who are defaulters are prevented from voting by deleting their names from the final list of voters, the above bye-law, for all purposes, would prove to be a dead-letter. Unless, therefore, the Collector makes an enquiry under Rule 6 in order to give effect to bye-law No. 12 so that the persons who are defaulters are prevented from voting by deleting their names from the final list of voters, the above bye-law, for all purposes, would prove to be a dead-letter. In our view, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed and the rule is discharged with no order as to costs. ------