JUDGMENT -N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:-These four writ petitions raise a common question of law in the set of identical facts and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. Election to Uttarane Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, a Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 2(27) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 were scheduled on 26th December, 1993. Nomination papers of these four petitioners came to be rejected on the ground that they are defaulters not having repaid crop loan on the due date. It is the case of all the petitioners that though they did not repay the crop loan on the due date, they have paid it subsequently and on the date of the nomination, they were not in arrears about crop loan of the Society in question. The question is whether a default once committed by a primary member of the Co-operative Society would disentitle him to contest the election even if he has repaid the amount defaulted before he files the nomination. 2. Shri V.J. Dixit, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, contended that the language of sub-section (1) of section 73-FF makes it clear that the question whether one is defaulter or not will have to be considered at the time when he is being appointed, nominated or elected, as the case may be. Therefore, if a person is not a defaulter when he is being elected, nominated or appointed, then he is not disqualified from being elected, nominated or appointed as a member of the committee. According to Shri Dixit, if the amount of default is already paid before filing nomination, legislature has not provided for continuance of stigma of disqualification and no nomination paper can be rejected on this count. Shri A.G. Godhamgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Society, submitted that sub-section (1) of section 73-FF provides and defines the term defaulter not only for the purposes of being nominated or elected but also for the purposes of being member of the committee of the Society. Therefore, a person who is already member of committee of Society and a person who seeks to be member of committee of Society have been equated by the legislature and the default will have to be interpreted in similar way. Therefore, a person who is already member of committee of Society and a person who seeks to be member of committee of Society have been equated by the legislature and the default will have to be interpreted in similar way. Shri Godhamgaonkar further points out that section 73-FFF provides for a specific period to keep a defaulter away from the affairs of the Society and the same period should have been read in respect of a person who is aspires to be a member of the Committee of the Society. Shri Godhamgaonkar contends that if the legislature wanted that the defaulter should not be allowed to be associated with the management of the Co-operative Society, it makes on difference whether he was elected or whether he intends to offer himself for the membership of the Society. Shri Godhamgaonkar submits that the two years period prescribed under section 73-FFF should also be read in section 73-FF since both these sections along with section 73-F constitute composite code proceeding for the default. Lastly he submits that, at least, for the election immediately taking place after the default is committed or taking place in the co-operative year in which default is committed, the default should result in disqualification of the candidate irrespective of the fact that he has paid amount after the due date but before the date of the filing of the nomination. Shri S.V. Chandole, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of other contestants in the fray, supported the arguments advanced by Shri Godhamgaonkar and added that the question whether petitioners are defaulters or not, is a question of fact and since no material is available before this Court, this Court should not interfere into the findings of facts recorded by both the authorities below in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri E.P. Sawant, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for State, supported the orders of the Returning Officer. 3. It is true that section 73-FF deals with the default made by a primary member as well as member of the committee of the Society. It is also true that section 73-FFF provides that the defaulter member shall not be re-appointed, re-nominated or re-elected as a member of committee for two years. 3. It is true that section 73-FF deals with the default made by a primary member as well as member of the committee of the Society. It is also true that section 73-FFF provides that the defaulter member shall not be re-appointed, re-nominated or re-elected as a member of committee for two years. However, I do not find any basis to assume that primary members of the Society wants to get themselves elected, nominated or appointed and the members who have been already elected as a member of the committee and are in office have been treated alike by the legislature while making default under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Members who are in office is a separate class and they can separately be dealt. If somebody is already entrusted with the management of the Society, he is expected to obey the rules of the Society and if he commits a default in it, punishment of removal is provided and he is debarred from being again appointed or elected to the said post for a period of two years. This Court in the case of (Keshaorao Narayanrao Patil v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Akola others)1, 1987 Mh. L.J. 709 has taken a view that the consequences of sub-section (2) of section 73-FF is not automatic and a person who is defaulter ceases to be member and procedure as prescribed under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, will have to be followed and a hearing will have to be given. No such procedure is prescribed so far default of a primary member is concerned. So far as primary members of the Society are concerned, the default has been defined by section 73-FF and default in respect of the repayment of the term loan or repayment of the anamat payment for the price of the goods, commodities or services obtained from the Society will have to be paid on the due date. If it is not made by the due date, then he is termed as a defaulter. Any member when he is continuing the default shall not be entitled to be nominated, elected, co-opted or appointed as a member of the committee. Legislature has not provided that if default is once committed stigma shall continue for a specified period. If it is not made by the due date, then he is termed as a defaulter. Any member when he is continuing the default shall not be entitled to be nominated, elected, co-opted or appointed as a member of the committee. Legislature has not provided that if default is once committed stigma shall continue for a specified period. It has not been provided that a stigma would last for a particular period irrespective of the fact that the concerned member wants to make payment of amounts and has actually paid defaulted money. The principle underlying the disqualification so far as the election law is concerned is that he should not be a defaulter on the last day of the nomination. There is nothing in section 73-FF or any of the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, to interpret that a default once committed will disentitle the primary member to be elected or nominated, co-opted or appointed, as the case may be, as member of the managing committee of any Co-operative Society at any time in future. There is no provision to disqualify him even for the next election due if he has paid amount defaulted. Any penal provision, however reasonable it may appear, cannot be added to the statute when actually there is none. Penal provisions are to be interpreted strictly and should be confined to the class and circumstances which have been laid down in the provision. This point was also raised before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Murlidhar Bhaulal Malu and others v. Sudhakar Honaji Patil and another)2, A.I.R. 1988 Bom. 256, and the Division Bench had observed : "Some debate was raised before us as to what will be the date relevant for deciding the question of disqualification so far as elections are concerned. The expression used is "no person shall be eligible for being elected as a member of a society, if he is disqualified". The words "for being elected" will include whole series of steps in the process of election, starting with the nomination and ending with the announcement of election. Therefore, the date of nomination will also be a relevant date. Such a disqualification should exist on the last date fixed for filing of nomination, as till that date nomination papers could be filed. This position was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing before us. Therefore, the date of nomination will also be a relevant date. Such a disqualification should exist on the last date fixed for filing of nomination, as till that date nomination papers could be filed. This position was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing before us. Further from section 73-FFF(3) it is clear that a person is eligible to be re-nominated, re-co-opted, re-appointed or re-elected as a member on the committee as soon as his disqualification ceases to exist." Division Bench thus held that if the disqualification ceases to be operative on the date of the nomination, the candidates nomination will have to be held valid. 4. In all these petitions, nominations were rejected on the count that crop loan was not repaid on the due date. The due date was 26th March, 1993. It is contended by the petitioners in these petitions that the amount was repaid to the Society on 19th April, 1993, 5th June, 1993, 30th June, 1993 and 6th April, 1993 respectively. The last date for the nomination was 22nd November, 1993. It is averred by the petitioners on affidavit that they have paid the amount on the dates mentioned above and on the date of nomination, they were not defaulters. This fact is also averred before the appellate authority in the appeal memo and this assertion has not been controverted by filling affidavit-in-reply by respondents. 5. Shri S.V. Chandole, learned Counsel appearing for respective respondents - contestants invited my attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of (Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and others)3, 1993 A.I.R. Supreme Court Weekly 2400, to fortify his submission that no new plea can be allowed to be raised in the writ petition for the first time. I do not think that this case can further the submission of Shri Chandole. Plea that the petitioners had already paid the dues when the nomination paper was filed was raised in the appeal memo and it is not raised for the first time in these writ petitions. This Court had allowed the petitioners to contest the election by way of interim relief and now I hold that their nomination papers are valid. Returning Officer is allowed to declare election results which were withheld because of the interim orders of this Court. 6. In the result, petitions are allowed. This Court had allowed the petitioners to contest the election by way of interim relief and now I hold that their nomination papers are valid. Returning Officer is allowed to declare election results which were withheld because of the interim orders of this Court. 6. In the result, petitions are allowed. The order dated 23rd November, 1993 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner in each case are set aside along with the orders of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Erandol, in appeals. Nomination papers of petitioners are held to be valid. Returning Officer to proceed and declare election results. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs of these petitions. Petitions allowed. *****