JUDGMENT - P.S. SHAH, J.:---The petitioner Prabhani Zilla Krishi Udyogic Serva Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') having its registered office at Parbhani. Respondent No. 3, Godavari Dudhna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Devnandra (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the Sakhar Karkhana') is also a co-operative society registered under the said Act and has its registered office at Devnandra, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani. 2. The dispute relates to the inclusion of the petitioner society in the voters list of the Sakhar Karkhana. The Sakhar Karkhana is a specified society under the Act. Under its bye laws different categories of members of the Sakhar Karkhana are contemplated and co-operative society is one of them. According to the petitioner society, it has been duly admitted as an ordinary member of the Sakhar Karkhana and as such the name of the petitioner society was rightly included in the provisional list of voters forwarded by the Sakhar Karkhana to the Collector as per the Election rules as well as in the final list of voters published by the Collector and, therefore, the Collector had erred in deleting the name of the petitioner society from the voters list. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Sakhar Karkhana that the petitioner society is neither eligible for being admitted as the ordinary member of the Sakhar Karkhana nor has it been admitted as such by the Sakhar Karkhana. It is their contention that the petitioner society had not even applied for being admitted as an ordinary member of the Sakhar Karkhana as required by the bye law No. 18. According to the Sakhar Karkhana, the petitioner society has been admitted only as a nominal member of the Sakhar Karkhana and since a nominal member is not entitled to vote, the name of the petitioner society was rightly deleted by the Collector from the voters list. 3. The membership of the Sakhar Karkhana is dealt with in Bye law No. 18 of the bye-laws of the Sakhar Karkhana which contemplates 4 categories of members viz. (1) producer member. (2) ordinary or non producer member (3) nominal member and (4) beneficiary member. It is common ground that the petitioner society is neither a producer member nor a beneficiary member. (1) producer member. (2) ordinary or non producer member (3) nominal member and (4) beneficiary member. It is common ground that the petitioner society is neither a producer member nor a beneficiary member. The bye law provides various conditions for becoming ordinary or non-producer member of the Sakhar Karkhana. The contentions are that the society which is desirous of becoming a member of the Sakhar Karkhana must purchase at least one share of Rs. 1,000/- and that the society has to make a written application for becoming a member of the Sakhar Karkhana. The bye law shows that only certain societies are eligible to become ordinary members of the Sakhar Karkhana. The relevant portion of the bye law is as follows : ^ljdkj ;k laLFksps dk;Z{ks=kr uksnfoysY;k lgdkjh laLFkk T;k laLFksP;k dk;Z{ks=kl dkj[kkU;kaps dk;Z{ks= ;sr vlsy v'kk lgdkjh laLFkkuk ¼lgdkjh O;Drh flä vkf.k O;ähauk lkekU; fdaok fcxj mRiknd lHkklnRo [kqys jkfgy- lkslk;Vhps lHkkln gks.;kl [kyhy vVh iw.kZ djkO;k ykxrhy- 1- lkslk;Vhus funku ,d Hkkx ?ksryk ikfgts o ijr ,d HkkxkiksVh fdaer :i;s 1]000 ¼gtkj½ Hkjys ikfgts- 2- lkslk;Vhus lHkkln gks.;kpk ys[kh vtZ dsyk ikfgts- The Bye law suggests that even the Government can become a member of the Sakhar Karkhana. However, it is to be noted that there is no comma after the word ^ljdkj^] not after the words ^uksanfoysY;k lgdkjhlaLFkk^ in the said bye law. Now, the wording of the bye law as it stands raises scope for different interpretations as regards the co-operative societies which are eligible to become ordinary members of the Sakhar Karkhana. It view of the absence of a comma after word "uksanfoysY;k laLFkk" it is urged by the Counsel for the Sakhar Karkhana that according to the said provisions of the bye law only 3 categories of ordinary members are contemplated and they are : (1) The Government, (2) such co-operative societies which have been registered in the operational area of the Sakhar Karkhana and their operational area falls within the operational area of the Sakhar Karkhana and (3) individuals. According to Mr. Naik, who appears for the petitioner society, however, the bye law contemplates 3 categories of ordinary members, viz., (1) The Government (2) the co-operative societies which have been registered at a place within the operational area of the Sakhar Karkhana (3) co-operative societies whether registered within or without the operational area of the Sakhar Karkhana (4) individual. According to Mr. Naik, who appears for the petitioner society, however, the bye law contemplates 3 categories of ordinary members, viz., (1) The Government (2) the co-operative societies which have been registered at a place within the operational area of the Sakhar Karkhana (3) co-operative societies whether registered within or without the operational area of the Sakhar Karkhana (4) individual. On a reading of the aforesaid provisions which in our view has not been carefully drafted to bring out the real intention, it does appear that it is susceptible to both interpretation. It is desirable that the provisions should be suitably amended in clear words so as to bring out the true intention as to which categories so co-operative societies are eligible to become ordinary members of the Sakhar Karkhana. 4. As far as the factual aspects are concerned, it is the case of the Sakhar Karkhana that the petitioner society had never made any written application for becoming a member of the Sakhar Karkhana nor has the Sakhar Karkhana passed any resolution admitting the petitioner society as an ordinary member of the Sakhar Karkhana. The learned Counsel for the Sakhar Karkhana submitted on the other hand that by the resolution dated June 30, 1982 the petitioner society was admitted only as a nominal member of the Sakhar Karkhana and was not, therefore, entitled to be included as a member in the voters' list. These facts are disputed by Mr. Naik appearing for the petitioner society. He submitted that the evidence on the record clearly shows that the petitioner society was in fact admitted as an ordinary member of the Sakhar Karkhana. In support of his contention he particularly relied on the letter dated January 5, 1982 received by the petitioner society from the Manager of the Sakhar Karkhana in which it was admitted that the petitioner society was a member of the Sakhar Karkhana and on that basis the petitioner society was requested by the Sakhar Karkhana to send the name of 'delegate' who would vote on behalf of the petitioner society at the time of the election. Reliance was also placed on the circumstances that the petitioner society had passed a resolution in the year 1977, directing purchase of 5 shares of Rs. 1,000/- each of the Sakhar Karkhana and pursuant thereto a sum of Rs. 5000/- by cheque was forwarded to the Sakhar Karkhana. Reliance was also placed on the circumstances that the petitioner society had passed a resolution in the year 1977, directing purchase of 5 shares of Rs. 1,000/- each of the Sakhar Karkhana and pursuant thereto a sum of Rs. 5000/- by cheque was forwarded to the Sakhar Karkhana. Though the question as to whether the petitioner society is an ordinary member of the Sakhar Karkhana and as such is entitled to be included in the voters list is contested by the parties before us, since we are of the view that the Collector had no jurisdiction to delete the name of the petitioner society from the voters list after it was made final, the question does not survive for our consideration. 5. The sole question that arises for our consideration is whether the Collector had jurisdiction to delete the name of the petitioner society from the voters list which was already made final under the provisions of the Maharashtra Specific Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Election Rules'). In this case the voters list was prepared for the purpose of election for the Board of Directions of the Sakhar Karkhana. For that purpose by the letter dated January 5, 1982 the Managing Director of the Sakhar Karkhana called upon the petitioner society to send the name of the 'delegate' to be included in the voters list of the Sakhar Karkhana. On January 13, 1982 the petitioner society passed a resolution appointing its Chairman Ganeshrao Nagorao Dudhgaonkar as its delegate. Along with it's letter dated January 16, 1982, the petitioner society forwarded a copy of the said resolution to the Sakhar Karkhana. Sometime thereafter the Collector issued notice dated September 13, 1982 to the petitioner society calling upon it to show cause why its name should not be deleted from the voters list of the Sakhar Karkhana in view of the fact that in general body meeting of the Sakhar Karkhana held on June 30, 1982 the petitioner society was admitted only as a nominal member. By their letter dated September 23, 1982 the petitioner society pointed out to the Collector, Parbhani, that the petitioner society was in fact an ordinary member of the Sakhar Karkhana and not a nominal member as contended by the Sakhar Karkhana and its name was rightly included in the voters list. By their letter dated September 23, 1982 the petitioner society pointed out to the Collector, Parbhani, that the petitioner society was in fact an ordinary member of the Sakhar Karkhana and not a nominal member as contended by the Sakhar Karkhana and its name was rightly included in the voters list. Again by the letter dated October 5, 1982 the petitioner society reiterated its contention that it had the rights of ordinary member and not of a nominal member as contended by the Sakhar Karkhana. Thereafter the Collector, Parbhani, purporting to Act under sub-rule (4) Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Election Rules and section 24 and sub-section (8) of section 27 of the Act ordered that the name of the petitioner society should be deleted from the voters list of the Sakhar Karkhana on the ground that it was only a nominal member having no right to vote. The petitioner society has, therefore, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid order of the Collector. 6. Now, the record produced before us shows that a provisional list of voters was prepared by the Sakhar Karkhana and was duly sent by the Sakhar Karkhana to the Collector as required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Elections Rules. In this provisional list the name of the petitioner society was included as a voter presumably on the basis that it was an ordinary member of the Sakhar Karkhana. The name of the delegate as intimated by the petitioner-society was, however, not mentioned therein. Thereafter the Collector published this provisional list on August 2, 1982 and called for objections. The last date for submitting objections was August 13, 1982. Various objections to the voters list were received by the Collector; but there was no objection raised so far as the inclusion of the name of the petitioner society in the voters list. After consideration of the objection the Collector finalised the voters list, which was duly published on August 23, 1982 as required by Rule 7 of the said rules. There was no change whatsoever in the final voters list that was published by the Collector on August 23, 1982 so far as the petitioner society's name therein is concerned. After consideration of the objection the Collector finalised the voters list, which was duly published on August 23, 1982 as required by Rule 7 of the said rules. There was no change whatsoever in the final voters list that was published by the Collector on August 23, 1982 so far as the petitioner society's name therein is concerned. In other words the name of the petitioner society (sans the name of the delegate) was included in the final list of voters which was published by the Collector on August 23, 1982. After the final list of voters was thus published by the Collector on August 23, 1982 the Sakhar Karkhana raised an objection before the Collector contending that the name of the petitioner society should be deleted because it was only a nominal member and under the bye laws a nominal member is not entitled to vote. Thereupon a show cause notice as to why its name should not be deleted was issued by the Collector to the petitioner society and ultimately by his order dated October 30, 1982 the Collector directed deletion of the name of the petitioner society from the voters list, which as stated earlier, was already made final. Thereafter on November 18, 1982, the programme for the election of the Board of Directors of the Sakhar Karkhana was published. As per this programme, December 2, 1982 was the last date for filing the nomination, December 4, 1982 was the date for scrutiny and December 13, 1982 is the last date for withdrawing the nomination. As per this programme the voting is to take place on December 28, 1982. This petition challenging the order of the Collector came to be filed on November 29, 1982 and came up for admission before us on December 1, 1982. On that day after hearing the parties it was directed by us that the Returning Officer should accept the nomination of the petitioner society if filed by it, subject to the result of this petition. 7. It is clear that the Collector had no jurisdiction to revise the final voters list which was duly published on August 23, 1982. On that day after hearing the parties it was directed by us that the Returning Officer should accept the nomination of the petitioner society if filed by it, subject to the result of this petition. 7. It is clear that the Collector had no jurisdiction to revise the final voters list which was duly published on August 23, 1982. This voters list was prepared for the election of the Board of Directors for the current year and there is no rule which permitted the Collector to alter this voters list, even if the contention of the Sakhar Karkhana that the petitioner society was only a nominal member was true. The Collector was not empowrer to modify this list by deleting the name of the petitioner society on the ground. The stage for modification of the voters list was before the publication of the final list. The provisional list which was received by the Collector included the name of the petitioner society as a voter and no objection was received from any one and the Collector retained the name of the petitioner society as a voter in the final list. Once this list is prepared and finalised there is no rule or legal provisions whereunder the Collector could pass an order deleting the name of the voter whose name is included in the final list of voters. It is true that under the rules the Collector does possess power to amend the list but this power is restricted only to two cases as provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 and sub-rules (5) to (7) of Rule 6. The said sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 allows a society which has included the name of its delegate to change the name of the delegate and this could be done 7 days prior to the last date of filing the nomination. Similarly under the said sub-rule (5) to (7) of Rule 6 a person whose name is not included in the voters list is allowed to apply to the Collector to include his name and such application can be made within a period of 15 days from the date of the display of the final list of voters under the rules. But apart from these two cases, the Collector has not been given any power to amend the voters list. But apart from these two cases, the Collector has not been given any power to amend the voters list. No other provision has been brought to our notice under which the Collector is empowered to amend the voters list after it is made final and published by him on the ground mentioned in the order of the Collector. The provisions clearly show that the list published by the Collector is final except in regard to the two cases mentioned above. The impugned order of the Collector dated October 30, 1982 directing the deletion of the name of the petitioner society is, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction and must be quashed. 8. Since we are quashing the order of the Collector dated October 30, 1982 on the above grounds, it is not necessary for us to consider the other contentions urged by the parties before us. 9. In the result the impugned order of the Collector dated October 30, 1982 to extent that it deletes the name of the petitioner society is set aside. As mentioned above, the Returning Officer was directed to accept the nomination on behalf of the petitioner society making it clear that it was subject to the result of this petition. We are informed that the petitioner society had filed the nomination paper on December 2, 1982 through its delegate Ganeshrao Nagorao Dudhgaonkar. The scrutiny took place on December 4, 1982. It is quite possible that the nomination of the petitioner society might not have been objected on various grounds at the time of the scrutiny because of the interim order passed by us. Under the circumstances in the interest of justice it is necessary that a further opportunity to raise objections, if any, to the nomination of the petitioner society should be given to the other contesting candidates and for that purpose we direct the Returning Officer should head and dispose of the objections if any, to the nomination of the petitioner society on or before December 13, 1982 and the date and time fixed in that behalf by him should be communicated by him and to the contesting candidates in the society constituency. It was urged by Mr. It was urged by Mr. Deo that even if the name of the petitioner society is included in the voters list the nomination paper filed by the delegate on its behalf could be invalid because the voters list does not mention the name of the delegate. Now, this is a question which will have to be decided by the Returning Officer at the time of the scrutiny, if such an objection is raised. We are not called upon to consider that question nor do we express any opinion whatsoever on this aspect of the matter. 10. The petition, is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the Collector dated October 30, 1982 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. 11. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. -----