JUDGMENT- B.N. DESHMUKH, J.:---The petitioner appearing as party in person has challenged the provision of voting for electing the members of Board of Directors of Madhukar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Ltd. 2. According to the petitioner, as the area of sugar factory is divided into five Gats and two Directors are required to be elected from each Gat, it would be convenient and proper to hold that the voters from each Gat shall elect two Directors from that Gat and the voters from other Gat shall have no right to vote to the candidates from other Gats, in which they are not included as voters. 3. We may refer to the provisions of Rule 42 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies (Elections to Committees) Rules, 1971, which deals with the procedure for voting. Rule 42 reads as follows : "In cases where there are no constituencies defined in the bye-laws or where more than one seat is authorised in the bye-laws for a constituency, voting in so far as these seats are concerned shall be recorded in accordance with the following provisions, namely : (a) Every voter shall be entitled to give as many votes as there are seats for filling which votes are to be taken but no voter shall give more than one vote to any one candidate. (b) The voter shall make a mark on the ballot paper with the instrument supplied for the purpose on or near the symbols of the candidate or candidates for whom he intends to vote, so however that no part of any mark so made shall appear in the space provided for other candidate. The voter shall thereafter fold the marked ballot paper so as to conceal his vote and insert the folded ballot paper into the ballot box and without undue delay leave the polling station." Sub-rule (a) of Rule 42 states that every voter shall be entitled to give as many votes as there are seats for filling which votes are to be taken, but no voter shall give more than one vote to any one candidate. 4. If the provisions of the Act, Election Rules and the Bye-laws are considered together, though there will be two candidates to be elected from each Gat, all the voters from the entire area are entitled to cast as many votes as there are seats from all the Gats taken together. 4. If the provisions of the Act, Election Rules and the Bye-laws are considered together, though there will be two candidates to be elected from each Gat, all the voters from the entire area are entitled to cast as many votes as there are seats from all the Gats taken together. The only rider on this right of voting by the voter is that he cannot give more than one vote in favour of any one candidate. 5. It seems that the relevant provisions came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4526 of 1984 (at Bombay) and the Division Bench has rejected the petition by observing as under : "According to the bye-laws of the society and the information supplied to the voters at Exhibit `E to the petition, each "Gat" has to elect only two Directors. There is no confusion on this point, according to us. Hence rejected." 6. There is no dispute that there will be two Directors to be elected from each Gat. The question agitated before us was that for electing two Directors from that Gat, persons enrolled as voters from that Gat alone will be entitled to vote. Such interpretation is not possible, having regard to the plain reading of the provisions of Rule 42 of the said Rules. Rule 42(a) categorically states that every voter shall be entitled to give as many votes as there are seats. Admittedly, in the present case, though there are two Directors to be elected from each Gat, the total number of Directors to be elected is ten from five Gats. In view of the provision of sub-rule (a) of Rule 42, each voter from the entire area will, therefore, be entitled to cast votes for each of the ten Directors. As such, he will have ten votes with only one rider that he cannot give more than one vote to anyone candidate. 7. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in (Ziley Singh and others v. The Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies, Lucknow and others)1, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 758. As such, he will have ten votes with only one rider that he cannot give more than one vote to anyone candidate. 7. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in (Ziley Singh and others v. The Registrar, Cane Co-operative Societies, Lucknow and others)1, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 758. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1966, read with U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, for the election of members of the managing committee of the co-operative societies under the provisions of that Act and the Rules. Rule 409 of the said Rules provided for the election of members. The bye-laws of the co-operative society further provided for a committee of management consisting of 14 members. The delegates constituting the general body were divided into 14 constituencies. Each constituency was to elect one Director. The delegates of the members of the society in a constituency were to elect a member of each single member constituency. The members of the committee were to be elected on that basis, whereby each delegate of each constituency exercised one vote for electing a member of that constituency. In the light of the provisions of that Act and Rule 409 of the relevant Rules, read with the bye-laws of that society, the Supreme Court had held that at an election of members of the committee of management one member will have only one vote for the constituency to which he belongs. 8. The provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies (Elections to Committees) Rules are altogether different. 9. There is a provision in sub-rule (a) of Rule 42 that every voter shall be entitled to give as many votes as there are seats for filling which votes are to be taken. Thus, when there are 10 members to be elected, as per this rule, every voter is entitled to cast 10 votes, as there are 10 seats to be filled in. 10. The observations of the Supreme Court in Ziley Singhs case are based on the fact that the area of sugar factory was divided into different territorial constituencies under the bye-laws of that society. In the present case, there is no such territorial division carving out different constituencies. 10. The observations of the Supreme Court in Ziley Singhs case are based on the fact that the area of sugar factory was divided into different territorial constituencies under the bye-laws of that society. In the present case, there is no such territorial division carving out different constituencies. On the contrary, the provisions of Rule 42(a) make it clear that the entire area of the sugar factory constitutes one territorial constituency. The division of Gats is merely for electing member from different Gats and does not take away the right to vote of the voters at the election. The territorial constituency of the sugar factory comprises of the entire area and the area of sugar factory is not divided into different territorial constituencies, so as to restrict the right of voting. The Gats are formed only to elect the candidates from different Gats for enlarging the right of representation beyond ones territory. The provision of Rule 409 of the U.P. Co-opearative Societies Rules are altogether different from Rule 42(a) of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies (Elections to Committees) Rules. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ziley Singhs case is, therefore, not applicable in the present case, having regard to the statutory provisions under which the elections of this sugar factory are required to be held. 11. We are, therefore, of the opinion, having regard to the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the relevant Rules, that the voter, even though his name appears in the voters list of a particular Gat, has a right to vote to elect all the Directors of the Board of Directors of the sugar factory. The provision made for electing two Directors from each Gat does not affect in any way the right to vote granted to the voter under Rule 42(a) which entitles him to give as many votes as there are seats for filling which votes are to be taken. 12. In the result, rule discharged. No order as to costs. Rule discharged.