JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.:—These writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. We shall, however, take up for consideration Writ Petition No. 2171 of 1987 in terms of the judgment in which the Writ Petition No. 1947 of 1987 can also be disposed of. 2. The facts are that, the elections of the District Loan Committee of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited (hereinafter for short 'the Bank') were notified in June 1986. As per the election programme, the petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 filed their nomination papers for election as members to the District Loan Committee on 16-9-1986. The nomination papers were scrutinised by the Election Officer on 18-9-1986. An objection was raised to the nomination papers of the petitioner on the ground that he was disqualified from contesting the said election by virtue of section 73-FF of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). The said objection to his nomination papers was rejected. The nomination papers of the petitioner were thus accepted by the Election Officer. According to the petitioner, he defeated the respondent No. 1 by 139 votes in the election to the District Loan Committee. 3. The respondent No. 1 filed an Election Petition under the provisions of section 144-T of the Act claiming relief that the election of the petitioner to the District Loan Committee should be set aside and instead the respondent No.1 should be declared as elected to the District Loan Committee. The petitioner by his written statement denied the allegations made against him by the respondent No. 1 in his Election Petition. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati who was empowered under section 144-T of the Act to try the election petitions thereunder held by his order dated 10-9-1987 that the petitioner was disqualified on the date of his election under section 73-FF of the Act. He, therefore, set aside his election to the District Loan Committee. He, however did not grant the declaration in favour of the respondent No. I that he should be deemed to be elected to the District Loan Committee. He, therefore, set aside his election to the District Loan Committee. He, however did not grant the declaration in favour of the respondent No. I that he should be deemed to be elected to the District Loan Committee. Feeling aggrieved by the order setting aside his election to the District Loan Committee, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this court and feeling aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner not granting declaration in his favour that he should be deemed to be elected to the District Loan Committee, the respondent No.1 has preferred the Writ Petition No. 1947 of 1987 in this Court. Both these petitions thus arise out of the same order and thus can be conveniently disposed of by this judgment. 4. Although the petitioner has raised several contentions in these writ petitions, in our view it is not necessary to decide all his contentions because his contention that section 73-FF of the Act is not applicable to the members of the District Loan Committee is well founded and has to be upheld. To appreciate his submission, it is necessary briefly to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 73-FF of the Act provides for disqualification for membership of a Committee. The question in the instant writ petitions is what the word “Committee” used in section 73-FF means. The said word is defined in section 2(7) of the Act to mean the committee of management or board of directors or other directing body, by whatever name called, in which the management of the affairs of a society is vested under section 73. Perusal of section 73 shows that the management of every society vests in a committee constituted in accordance with the Act, the Rules and by-laws, which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed respectively by the Act, the rules and the by-laws. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a District Loan Committee is not a Committee of management in which the management of the society viz. the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank vests. 5. In order to show the composition of the District Loan Committee, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice section 112-A of the Act. the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank vests. 5. In order to show the composition of the District Loan Committee, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice section 112-A of the Act. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 112-A of the Act provides that there shall be a District Loan Committee for each District excluding the City of Bombay, District and Bombay Sub-urban District. Clause (b) then provides that every District Loan Committee shall consist of the following 12 members :— (i) seven delegates, elected in accordance with the provisions of the Clauses (c) and (d). There are other members in the District Loan Committee with which we are not concerned in this petition. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 112-A provides that seven delegates to each District Loan Committee shall be elected by the direct election by the members of the State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank from such seven contiguous elected divisions in the district as the Collector may, by notification in the Official Gazette, determine, so, however, that every such electoral division may, as far as is reasonably practicable, consist of equal number of members. 5-A. Clause (d) in sub-section (1) of section 112-A of the Act then provides that every election to elect delegates shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XI-A and shall be conducted in the manner laid down by or under that Chapter .unless there is any provision contrary to the same in section 112-A. Proviso to Clause (d) shows that a reference to ,an election of a member or members of the Committee of a specified society in that Chapter or the rules made thereunder shall be deemed to be a reference to an election of a delegate or delegates of the State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank. It is thus clear from the provisions of section 112- A(1) referred to above that there are seven delegates elected by direct election to the District Loan Committee in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XI-A of the Act which are in respect of the elections to the specified societies i.e. societies specified under section 73(4) of the Act. 6. As regards the general body of the State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, the relevant provision is contained in Section 112-B of the Act. 6. As regards the general body of the State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, the relevant provision is contained in Section 112-B of the Act. Section 112-B(1)(a) shows that the delegates elected in accordance with the provisions of Clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 112-A referred to above, shall constitute the general body of members of the aforesaid Bank. It may be seen that section 72 of the Act provides that the final authority of every society shall vest in the general body of the members in general meeting summoned in such a manner as may be specified in the bye-laws. It is thus clear that Clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 112-A of the Act provide for a general body of members of the aforesaid Bank and the final authority of the said Bank vests in them as per section 72 of the Act. 6-A. It may then be seen that it is Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 112-B of the Act which gives composition of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid Bank. It is clear from the said provision that the Chairmen of all the District Loan Committees are constituents of the said Committee amongst other persons. It is the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that it is this Committee whose composition is given under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 112-B of the Act which is a managing committee within the meaning of section 73 of the Act and is, therefore, a committee as defined in section 2(7) of the Act. Further contention, therefore, is that in section 73-FF of the Act, the members of the committee for whom disqualification is laid down thereunder would include the members of the managing committee of the State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank as given in Clause (b) of sub-section 1 of section 112-B of the Act. It is however pertinent to see that in view of the provisions of section 112-B(1)(a) of the Act the delegates elected to the District Loan Committee constitute the general body and not the managing committee of the State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank. Section 73-FF does not deal with the disqualification of the members of the general body as such but it deals with the disqualification of the members of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society. Section 73-FF does not deal with the disqualification of the members of the general body as such but it deals with the disqualification of the members of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society. The delegate or the member of the District Loan Committee, is not, therefore within the mischief of section 73-FF of the Act. 7. It is, however, urged on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that section 144-E of the Act would make the provisions of section 73-FF of the Act applicable to the delegates or the members of the District Loan Committee. The submission is that, by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 112-A of the Act, the provisions of Chapter XI(A) of the Act are made applicable to the elections to the District Loan Committee. The further submission is that in the said Chapter XI-A or in any rule framed thereunder, in view of the proviso to the aforesaid Clause (d), a reference about election of a member of the Committee of a specified society would be deemed to be a reference to an election of delegate to the State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank to which the said chapter is made applicable. It is, therefore, urged that the disqualification for membership laid down in section 144-E(1) of the Act in the case of a member of the Committee of a specified society would also be applicable to a delegate or the member of the District Loan Committee. 7-A. In particular, it is urged that Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 144-E would be attracted in the case of a delegate to the District Loan Committee because of which the provisions of section 73-FF would be applicable to him. It is provided under Clause (e) that a person shall be disqualified for being elected as, and for being a member of the Committee of any specified society if he is so disqualified by or under any other provision of this Act. It is provided under Clause (e) that a person shall be disqualified for being elected as, and for being a member of the Committee of any specified society if he is so disqualified by or under any other provision of this Act. Since the disqualification under Clause (e) is a disqualification under any other provisions of the Act, the submission is that section 73-FF which prescribes a disqualification applicable to the member of a committee of any specified society would also be applicable to the delegate to the District Loan Committee since in place of the member of the committee of any specified committee, the expression 'delegate' of the State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank has to be read in view of the proviso to Clause (d) of section 112-A(1) of the Act referred to above. 7-B. There is a fallacy in the above reasoning pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. For the purpose of disqualification of a delegate of the State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, if the said expression 'delegate' of the said Bank is read, in place of the expression 'member' of any committee of any specified society in section 144-E(1) of the Act, the disqualification contemplated by Clause (e) of section 144-E(1) will have to be a disqualification prescribed under any other provisions of the Act in respect of a delegate of the State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank. The same view is taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2568 of 1987, (Wasudeo others v Registrar, Co-operative Societies)2, decided on 28-1-1988. What will have to be seen then is, whether any disqualification is prescribed for a delegate of the aforesaid bank under the Act. As already pointed out, since section 73-FF is not applicable to the delegate or the member of the District Loan Committee, the disqualification prescribed thereunder would not be applicable to him. Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 144-E would, therefore, be of no assistance to the respondent No.1. 8. Faced with this difficulty, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has sought to press old Rule 58 (prior to its amendment on 16-10-1987 which was applicable when the impugned elections were held) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 to show that the petitioner has incurred a disqualification as contemplated by Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) thereof. 8. Faced with this difficulty, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has sought to press old Rule 58 (prior to its amendment on 16-10-1987 which was applicable when the impugned elections were held) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 to show that the petitioner has incurred a disqualification as contemplated by Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) thereof. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, rightly urged before us that since in the election petition no such plea about the disqualification as contemplated by Rule 58(1)(A) was raised by the respondent No. 1, it is not open to him to raise the same for the first time in the instant writ petition. It may be seen that the question of disqualification is a question of fact and particularly in the election petition where the law is strict, the plea about the disqualification under Rule 58 (1)(A) cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the writ petition. Moreover, the disqualification under Rule 58(1)(A) is about default to any society in respect of any dues from any person either as a borrower or as a surety. It is difficult to see how the petitioner who is the purchaser from the society in question is covered by the expression 'borrower' or surety for whom the disqualification is prescribed thereunder. There is thus no merit also in the above plea. 9. In the result, Writ Petition No. 2171 of 1987 is allowed. The impugned order of the Additional Commissioner of the Amravati Division, Amravati is set aside. The Writ Petition No. 1947 of 1987 is dismissed. Rule made absolute in the above terms. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs in these writ petitions. Order accordingly. -----