JUDGMENT - Dharmadhikari C.S. J.- This petition is filed by the petitioner Maloji Vishnu Sabale praying for a declaration that the bye. law No. 29(1)(f) of the Dudhanga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. is ultra vires of the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the co-option of respondent No.3 Dattatraya Dhondi Pharakte as an Expert Director on the Board of Directors of the said specified society is also illegal. 2. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the various al1ega-tions made in the petition because ultimately this was the only point which was argued before us. 3. The bye-law No. 29 deals with the constitution of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.2 specified society. Clause 29(1)(f) of the bye-law with which we are concerned in this petition reads as under: That the Board of Directors may nominate an expert on the Board of Directors. 4. Dr. Naik the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the nomination contemplated by bye-law No. 29(1)(f) is in the nature of an election and therefore by virtue of the provisions of section 730 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the election of an expert on the Board of Directors is also subject to the provisions of Chapter XI A of the Act. Under Chapter XI A power to hold such an election is vested in the Collector and not in the Board. Therefore in view of the provisions of section 144 C read with other provisions of the Act such an election could have been held by the Collector alone. Hence the election of the respondent No.3 which is not held under the control of the Collector is wholly illegal. This is more so in view of the non-abstante clause in section 73G(3) of the Act. It is not possible for us to accept this contention of Dr. Naik. 5. It cannot be disputed that from prima fade reading of the bye-law No. 29(1)(f) it is clear that the nomination of an expert on the Managing Committee is not a must but is left to the discretion of the Managing Committee itself. The expression used is which means nomination or appointment and not election. In legal “'parlance the' words appointment, nomination, co-option and electioD have a distinct and different meaning aud connotation. The expression used is which means nomination or appointment and not election. In legal “'parlance the' words appointment, nomination, co-option and electioD have a distinct and different meaning aud connotation. The distinction between these processes is well known, though sometimes procedure followed is overlapping. For running a sugar factory on scientific lines, which is the main business of the respondent Society, some guidance from an expert may become necessary. Therefore it cannot be said that the bye-law is beyond the scope of the enactme'nt. It is no doubt true that in some cases this power of nominating an expert could be mis-used but on that count alone the bye-law itself cannot be declared as ultra vires. If the power is abused, the said abuse of the power is open to challenge iri an appropriateproceedingsin the Courtsof law. 6. Under section 9 of the Act, registration of society, is confemplated. A society can be registered if it has complied with the provisions of the Act, and the rules and its proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the provisions of the Act, or the rules. Sections 13 and 14 deal with the amendment of bye-laws. It is not disputed that bye-law No. 29 is duly approved by the competent authority. Then the section 73 of the Act, provides fo.r tpe constitution of the Committee in accordance with the Act, rules and bye-laws; which can exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by the Act. the rules and the bye-laws. Section 73G makes a provision for the conduct of elections to the committees of certain specified societies. Under bye-law 29(f) power to nominate or appoint an expert is vested in the Managing Committee or the Board of Directors. Even under section 73B, a power is conferred upon the Managing Committee to co-opt a person from amongst the persons entitled to such representatron, to reserve seats, if no such persons are elected or appointed. Therefore it cannot be said that only because power to nominate or appoint an expert on the Committee or Board, is vested in Managing Committee the said provision is either repugnant or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the niles. 7. We are concerned in this case with a specified society whose main business is to run a sugar factory. 7. We are concerned in this case with a specified society whose main business is to run a sugar factory. If for running such a factory on scientific lines, society thought it fit to have an expert on the Board of Directors, it cannot be said that such a provision is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act or the rules. Such provisions are made in other enactments also, such as, Maharashtra Municipalities Act, which provides for co-option of the persons who have special knowledge or practical experience in the field of public health, local self Government or education. After all an expert is a person who is very highly skilled or trained or informed and has got special knowledge in some special field. He may acquire such special knowledge by practice, research, professional qualifications, or vast experience. In the very nature of things such a highly qualified person may not like to enter an arena of election. This could be one of the reasons why the power is conferred upon a small body like board of directors. The board of directors is entrusted with day to day management of the society. Directors are in better position to judge the scientific need and other problems of the factory. Further while deciding the question relating to appointment or nomination of an expert they can seek assistance or guidance from other members of the Committee which include representatives of various financial bodies, Director of Sugar or Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, or their nominees. Thus to some extent there is an inherent check so that normally power will not be abused or misused. If in spite of this such a salutary provision or power is abused or misused by the board of directors it is always open for challenge. Therefore it cannot also be said that wholly unguided and arbitrary power is conferred upon the managing committee to appoint any Tom-Dick or Harry, as an expert on the managing committee. 8. Under section l44A (2) of the Act the term election is defined to mean “an election of a member or members of the committee of a specified society”. By virtue of section 144A the said provisions are also made applicable to the election of the officers by the members of the committee of the specified society. 8. Under section l44A (2) of the Act the term election is defined to mean “an election of a member or members of the committee of a specified society”. By virtue of section 144A the said provisions are also made applicable to the election of the officers by the members of the committee of the specified society. When the Legislature in its wisdom has chosen to use the word 'nomination' and not 'election', it will not be fair to construe the said word ' ' to mean election within the meaning of section 144A(2)(b) of theAct. Various provisions of the Act provide for an internal aid and evidence for construction; In section 73(G)(3) words used are “by electing or appointing persons”. In section 73B, word 'co-option' is used. Section 77A, provides for appointment of members of the committee etc. Sub-section (2) of section 20 defines the term officer meaning a person elected or appointed by a society in the office of such society according to bye-laws. In these circumstances it will not be proper to equate the nomination of an expert under bye-law No. 29(1)(f) of the Bye-laws with the term election as defined under section 144A(2) of the Act. 9. In the present case it is contended by the petitioner that respondent No.3 Dattatraya is not an expert in any sense of the term. He is a person who was defeated in the election and to provide him a back door entry on the board of directors he has been nominated on the managing committee as an expert. As to whether a person is an expert or not is not a pure question of law but in any case is a mixed question of law and fact. We are informed that a dispute under section 91 of the Act is pending before the competent Court wherein the question regarding the qualifications of the respondent No.3 to be nominated as an expert on the managing committee is raised. Therefore in our opinion it will not be fair at this stage to express any opinion in that behalf. We are inclined to keep the said question open to be decided by the competent authority. 10. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to deal with the merits of the case or to decide the various other contentions raised in the petition. We are inclined to keep the said question open to be decided by the competent authority. 10. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to deal with the merits of the case or to decide the various other contentions raised in the petition. In the result therefore the petition fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. 11. At this stage we are informed by Dr. Naik, that the dispute filed before the Co. operative Court No.2 Kolhapur involving the questions raised in this petition is long pending. It cannot be forgotten that when special tribunals are created for specially dealing with such special type of disputes, it is obligatory on the part of such tribunals to hear and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible so that the disputes raised do not become stale or infructuous. Therefore we direct the said Co-operative Court to hear and decide the said dispute as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from to-day. The Co-operative Cl”urt No.2 at Kolhapur should be informed accordingly. Petition dismissed. -----