JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:---Rule. Parties by Counsel. By consent, this batch of six writ petitions is heard finally at this stage. 2. Exclusion of more than 10,400 members out of total 10,687 members as voters for the election of Committee (Board of Directors) of Respondent Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited by the Collector, Satara vide its order dated 18-9-1996 is the core issue. In the counter to the core issue is the issue regarding the maintainability of these writ petitions. 3. Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (for short, 'Shriram Karkhana') Respondent No. 8 in writ petition 4961/96 and Respondent No. 7 in other writ petitions is a specified society under section 73-G of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'Act of I960'). The said Shriram Karkhana has set up a sugar factory in Phaltan taluka, District Satara with crushing capacity of 2000 metric tonnes per day. It is also a processing society. The election to the Committee (Board of Directors) of Shriram Karkhana is required to be held by the Collector of Satara under section 73G and Chapter-XIA of the Co-operative Societies Act. The last election to the Board of Directors was held in the year 1991 and it was elected on 8th March, 1991 for a duration of 5 years. Ordinarily the Collector, Satara ought to have held elections to the Board of Directors of Shriram Karkhana before 8th March, 1996, but it was not done and on the matter being taken to this Court the Collector was directed to hold elections to the Board of Directors as expeditiously as possible. The Collector, Satara declared election programme for preparation of voters list under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 (for short, 'Rules of 1971') in the first week of June, 1996 and the said programme was modified on 25th June, 1996. According to the modified programme, published by the Collector, the final voters list was to be published by 11th July, 1996. After the provisional list was declared somewhere in the month of June, 1996, the objections were invited and entertained and an order came to be passed by the Collector on 5th July, 1996. It appears that on 20th July, 1996 two writ petitions came to be filed by some members of Shriram Karkhana before this Court challenging the voters list and also order of Collector dated 5-7-1996. It appears that on 20th July, 1996 two writ petitions came to be filed by some members of Shriram Karkhana before this Court challenging the voters list and also order of Collector dated 5-7-1996. The said writ petitions were registered as writ petition Nos. 3038/96 and 3640/96 and were dismissed as withdrawn. Another writ petition No. 3922 of 1996 by another member was also dismissed by this Court on 1-8-1996. The Collector published the final voters list under Rule 6(4) on 2-8-1996 whereby only 266 members were shown as voters out of total number of 10,687 members. After order was passed by the Collector on 2-8-1996, another writ petition No. 4543/96 came to be filed before this Court. It was common ground of the learned Counsel or the parties in the said writ petition that excluded members had made applications under Rule 6(5) and the said applications were pending consideration by Collector under Rule 6(6) and 6(7) of the Rules of 1971. Accordingly that writ petition was disposed of by me on 6-9-1996 directing the Collector to dispose of the applications made by the members under sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of Rules 1971 in accordance with law uninfluenced by his previous order dated 5-7-1996. On 18-9-1996, the Collector, Satara dismissed all applications except five and accordingly out of 10,687 members of the said co-operative society only 271 members find their names in the final voters list. 4. Some facts relating to the amendment in the byelaws of Shriram Karkhana may be adverted to here. The Annual General Meeting of Shriram Karkhana on 14-7-1995 amended its existing byelaws whereby it raised the value of the shares from rupees 1000/- to rupees 2000/-. The amended byelaws were approved by the Registrar on 7-9-1995. On 16-10-1995 the Managing Director of the Shriram Karkhana issued notices to the members calling upon them to pay the increased share money within one month from the receipt of notice. The Board of Directors held its meeting on 18-10-1995 and by its resolution extended time for payment of increased value of the share money by one year. The Annual General Meeting of Shriram Karkhana held on 27-3-1996 extended further time to pay balance of the face value of the share by 31-3-1997. 5. Mr. The Board of Directors held its meeting on 18-10-1995 and by its resolution extended time for payment of increased value of the share money by one year. The Annual General Meeting of Shriram Karkhana held on 27-3-1996 extended further time to pay balance of the face value of the share by 31-3-1997. 5. Mr. K. K. Singhvi, learned senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner in writ petition 4961/96 strenuously contends that enquiry under Rule 6 is limited, narrow and mechanical and in that enquiry of summary nature, the Collector can only look into the effects set out in the rule itself and no further. According to him it does not empower the Collector to enquire into the question of eligibility of the member as a voter on any ground whatsoever. He relies upon decision of this Court in (Dhondiba Parshuram Lakade v. Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.)1, 1979 Mh.L.J. 311, Mr. Singhvi the learned senior Counsel would also contend that the amendment in the Rule 6 by incorporation of sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) has not changed the scope of enquiry under Rule 6(1) to 6(4). He placed reliance upon (Eknath Ashiram Alekar v. State of Maharashtra)2, 1989(3) Bom.C.R. 165 . The learned senior Counsel also vehemently argued that in a co-operative society having membership of 10,687, if more than 97% of the members are excluded from right to vote, the writ petition cannot be thrown on the grounds that this Petitioner has alternative remedy by challenging the election of members of committee in election petition and that election process has started. Such case, according to him, is an exceptional case warranting interference by High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Contends, Mr. Singhvi that the previous orders passed by this Court do not come in the way in entertaining the present petition because in this petition the Petitioners substantially seek to challenge the order by the Collector on 18-9-1996 rejecting more than ten thousand applications under sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 and the said order was not previously challenged. He urged that foundation of any valid election is valid electoral roll prepared in accordance with law and if that foundation is bad, a case for interference under Article 226 is made out. Mr. He urged that foundation of any valid election is valid electoral roll prepared in accordance with law and if that foundation is bad, a case for interference under Article 226 is made out. Mr. Singhvi would also contend that the amended byelaws did not prescribe any mode of payment in respect of the increased amount of share money by the existing members and, therefore, under section 26 of the Act of 1960, the Collector could not have deprived the members from exercising their right to vote as members. 6. Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner in other writ petitions adopted the contentions raised by Mr. K. K. Singhvi and further submitted that the order dated 18-9-1996 passed by the Collector is not in due compliance of the order passed by this Court on 6-9-1996. 7. Mr. M. A. Rane, learned Counsel appearing for Shriram Karkhana also supported the contentions raised by Mr. Singhvi. Mr. Rane urged that the Board of Directors by its resolution dated 18-10-1995 had extended time to pay the balance of face value of the shares payable by the members and, therefore, on 31-12-1995 the cut-off date, remaining amount of rupees 1000/- was neither due nor payable. He would further submit that the time is extended for payment of balance of the face value amount upto 31-3-1997 in the Annual General Meeting and, therefore, till date it is neither due nor payable and defranchising the members on that count by the Collector in his order dated 18-9-1996 cannot be sustained. 8. Mr. V. A. Gangal, the learned special Counsel appearing for State of Maharashtra and its other functionaries as well as, Mr. A.V. Anturkar, learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 7 and 9 in writ petition No. 4961/96 raised the objections about the maintainability of writ petitions on the ground that some of the members of the society filed writ petitions previously before this Court in representative capacity raising the same grounds while challenging the order passed by the Collector on 5-7-1996 which are sought to be raised again in the present writ petition which cannot be permitted. They relied upon decision of the Apex Court in (Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri)3, 1986(1) S.C.C. 100. They relied upon decision of the Apex Court in (Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri)3, 1986(1) S.C.C. 100. Maintainability of writ petitions is also challenged on the ground that preparation of voters list is an intermediate stage in the process of election and once the process has started the Court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and dispute relating to it must be resolved by way of substantive election petition under section 144-T of the Act of 1961. Regarding merits of the order passed by Collector and scope of inquiry under Rule 6(5) to 6(7), the special Counsel for the State urged that Rule 6 of Rules of 1971 was amended in the year 1980 and, therefore, judgments of this Court in Dhondiba's case and Balasaheb Gadhave's case are not applicable. According to him sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of Rule 6 inserted in 1980 make a substantial departure from the existing sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 6. He urged that word 'enquiry' in sub-rule (6) is conspicuously absent in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (5) begins with non obstante clause and that makes the difference between the enquiry contemplated under Rules 6(1) to (4) and 6(5) to (7). He submits that sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) were inserted to amend the then existing position of law based on Dhondiba's case. According to him an enquiry after an application is made by the member of co-operative society for inclusion of his name in voters list after it has been published under sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 is not mechanical and upon such application being made, the Collector has to consider the said application on its merit by seeking report from the District Deputy Registrar and while doing that it is always open to the Collector to consider whether such member is defaulter or not. Mr. Gangal submits that the enquiry contemplated in sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 is large and during the enquiry the Collector can always examine whether a member of the society has made payment in respect of membership of the society prescribed by Rules or byelaws or not and if such member has not made payment in respect of membership prescribed by Rules or byelaws of the society, such member has to be excluded from the voters list. He relies upon section 26 of the Act of 1960 that says that no person shall exercise right of member of a society until he has made payment to the society in respect of a membership prescribed by the Rules or byelaws of the society. According to Mr. Gangal, the question about the similarity of enquiry at this stage of 6(1) and 6(6) was never considered, argued, discussed or raised in Eknath's case and, therefore, observations made in paragraphs 21 and 32 of that case cannot be said to be laying down any proposition about the scope of the enquiry at this stage of Rule 6(5) to 6(7). Responding to Mr. Jahagirdar's argument about the Collector's order not in compliance with the order of this Court dated 6-9-1996, Mr. Gangal submitted that present order is not influenced by his previous order dt. 5-7-1996 and it was open to the Collector to take into consideration the report of the committee constituted under sub-rule (6) of Rule 6. Mr. Gangal also submitted that resolution passed by Board of Directors on 18-10-1995 appears to be forged and fabricated and has been created to give benefit to certain members who were otherwise not entitled to vote. He vehemently contended that the byelaws of Shriram Karkhana were amended on 14-7-1995 in the Annual General Meeting and Registrar approved the same on 7th September 1995 and, therefore, the increased amount of rupees 100/- in the membership share amount was liable to be paid by each member if they wanted to exercise their rights as member and such payment ought to have been made on or before 31-12-1995 irrespective of any extension granted by the Board of Directors or in the Annual General Meeting. He, thus prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 9. Mr. A. V. Anturkar, learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 7 and 9 in writ petition No. 4961/96 supported the contentions raised by Mr. Gangal and also submitted that in view of disputed questions of facts the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the order passed by the Collector does not call for any interference. 10. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to co-operative societies in the State of Maharashtra and it came into effect on 26th January, 1962. Chapter III which is relevant deals with members, their rights and liabilities. 10. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to co-operative societies in the State of Maharashtra and it came into effect on 26th January, 1962. Chapter III which is relevant deals with members, their rights and liabilities. Management of society is governed by Chapter VII. Provision for conduct of elections to committees and officers of certain societies and term of office of member of such committees is made in section 73G. Chapter XIA deals with elections of committees and officers of certain societies. Section 165 empowers the State Government to make Rules for conduct and regulation of the business of such society or class of societies, and, carrying out the purpose of the Act. In exercise of its powers conferred under various provisions of the Act of 1960 and all other powers enabling in this behalf, the Government of Maharashtra framed Rules of 1971. Rule 4 of Rules of 1971 provides : “4. Provisional List of Voters.---(1) A provisional list of voters shall be prepared by every society for the year in which general election is due to be held. Persons who are members as on the 30th June of the year immediately preceding the year in which such election is due shall be included in the provisional list. If different constituencies are provided in the byelaws, the names of voters shall be arranged constituencywise as laid down in the byelaws : Provided that, if in any case, the preparation of the provisional list of voters falls due after the expiry of a period of six months from the 30th June, the Collector may, in consultation with the Registrar in respect of the societies of the categories mentioned in clauses (i), (v), (vi) and (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 73-G, and in consultation with the District Deputy Registrar in respect of the societies of the other categories mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 73-G, by order, change the date of the 30th June and subsequent dates and fixed revised dates for the purposes of these Rules. (2) Four copies of the authenticated provisional lists of voters shall be sent by every society to the Collector, through the District Deputy Registrar so as to reach the Collector by the 15th July of the year in which the general election is due. (2) Four copies of the authenticated provisional lists of voters shall be sent by every society to the Collector, through the District Deputy Registrar so as to reach the Collector by the 15th July of the year in which the general election is due. Copies of the said list shall be displayed on the notice-board of the society, the District Deputy Registrar and the Collector by the 20th July of that year for inviting claims and objections. (3) If any society fails to send copies of the provisional list of voters to the Collector, through the District Deputy Registrar, by (the 15th July,) the Collector shall himself or through any person authorised by him in this behalf prepare a provisional list of voters, and the expenditure incurred therefor shall be recovered from the society as arrears of land revenue. (4) In the event of the Collector taking action under the last preceding sub-rule, he shall also cause copies of the provisional list of voters to be displayed on his notice-board and on the notice-board of the District Deputy Registrar and the society by (the 23rd July,) for inviting claims and objections.” 11. Rule 5 deals with particulars to be included in provisional list of voters. Rule 5 is reproduced. “5. Particulars to be included in provisional list of voters.---(1) The provisional list of voters, in the case of individual shareholders, shall contain the names, father's or husband's name, surname (if any) of every person entitled to be registered as a voter, with such other particulars as may be necessary to identify him. (2) Where a society is a member of a specified society, the specified society shall call for the name of the delegate duly authorised to vote at an election on behalf of the affiliated society, so as to reach it by the 2nd July. While communicating the name of its delegate to the specified society, the affiliated society shall enclose a copy of the resolution of the society or its committee under which the delegate is so authorised. The specified society shall include in the list of voters the names of all such delegates as have been communicated to it before the date fixed for publication of the provisional list. The specified society shall include in the list of voters the names of all such delegates as have been communicated to it before the date fixed for publication of the provisional list. In addition to the names of the delegates, the list shall contain the names of the affiliated societies, their registration numbers and addresses and the names of Constituencies, if any, to which they belong. A society which has communicated the name of its delegate shall by like resolution be permitted to change the name of its delegate not later than seven days before the date appointed by the Collector under Rule 16 of said Rules for making nominations.” 12. Rule 6 is the most relevant Rule for the present purposes, which reads thus : “6. Claims and Objections to provisional list of voters.---(1) When any provisional list of voters is published for inviting claims and objections, any omission or error in respect of the name or address or other particulars in the list may be brought to the notice of the Collector by (any member of society concerned who is a voter or any delegate authorised to vote on behalf of such society). (2) Every person making a claim or raising an objection shall do so by a separate petition, which shall be presented to the Collector on or before the 31st July, during office hours. (3) Every claim or objection shall be preferred in writing and state the grounds on which the claim is based or the objection is raised, as the case may be. (4) The Collector shall, after considering each claim or objection, give his decision thereon in writing to the person concerned before the 10th August and take steps to correct the provisional list wherever necessary. The list as finalised by the Collector after deciding all claims and objections shall be the final list of voters. (4) The Collector shall, after considering each claim or objection, give his decision thereon in writing to the person concerned before the 10th August and take steps to correct the provisional list wherever necessary. The list as finalised by the Collector after deciding all claims and objections shall be the final list of voters. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4) any person who is a member of the society as on the 30th day of June of the year immediately preceding the year in which such election is due or on such subsequent date as may be fixed by the Collector under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 and whose name is not included in the final list of voters prepared by the Collector under sub-rule (4) and who is desirous of being registered as a voter may apply in writing to the Collector in Form I-A (within a period of fifteen days from the date of display of the final list of voters under Rule 7). (6) Every such application received by the Collector shall be forwarded by him within three days of the date of receipt by him to the District Deputy Registrar for enquiry. The District Deputy Registrar shall cause an enquiry to be made into the application and submit his report to the Collector along with his recommendations within seven days from the date of receipt of the application by him from the Collector. (7) The Collector shall after considering the application and the report of the District Deputy Registrar give his decision in writing to the persons concerned, before the first date fixed for making nominations. If the Collector decides that the name of the applicant should be registered as a voter, he shall accordingly modify the list finalised by him earlier under sub-rule (a) and the list so modified shall then be treated as the final list of voters.” 13. It would not be out of place to mention here that sub-rules (5), (6) and (7), of Rule 6 were added in Rule 6 for the first time on 10th January, 1980. Rule 6 as was existing prior to 10-1-1980 came up for consideration before this Court in Dhondiba's case (supra). The Division Bench of this Court, in Dhondiba's case. It would not be out of place to mention here that sub-rules (5), (6) and (7), of Rule 6 were added in Rule 6 for the first time on 10th January, 1980. Rule 6 as was existing prior to 10-1-1980 came up for consideration before this Court in Dhondiba's case (supra). The Division Bench of this Court, in Dhondiba's case. in unequivocal terms held that not only that Rule 6 contemplates enquiry of a summary nature but also mechanical (though not without responsibility) and limited only to the effects set-out in the Rule itself and no more. The Division Bench emphasised that under Rule 6 the Collector has no authority, power or jurisdiction to dismember a person whose name appears in register of membership and which register is prima facie evidence of membership under section 38(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. 14. It will not be out of place to mention here that in another judgment (Balasaheb Gadhave v. Shree Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.)4, Special Appeal No. 2550 of 1973, Division Bench of this Court considered Dhondiba's case (cited supra), and, the question whether Collector has no power under Rule 6 of Rules of 1971 to delete the names of members who are defaulters and who have lost their right to vote in view of bye-law No. 12 of the said society. The Division Bench comprising of Vimadalal and Sapre, JJ. observed that in Dhondiba's case the main challenge to the eligibility of the persons to be voters was on the ground that they were not entitled to be the members of the society and the Division Bench observed in that case that this enquiry was beyond purview of Rule 6 but in Balasaheb Gadhave's case before them the question was whether members of the society whose names were shown in the register of membership maintained by the society, have lost their right of voting and can Collector delete their names from the final list of voters though they continued to be members and it was held by them that in view of byelaw 12 of the concerned society which clearly shows that defaulter member cannot exercise any right of member, the Collector can go into the question even in summary enquiry contemplated by Rule 6. 15. 15. Dhondiba's case has been considered subsequently by Division Bench of this Court in Eknath Alekar's case (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court held that sub-rule (5) does not affect the ratio laid down in Dhondiha's case regarding scope of inquiry under Rule 6(1) of Rules of 1971. In paragraph 21 of the report, Division Bench observed that it was difficult to understand how sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 affected the ratio laid down by this Court in Dhondiba's case because sub-rule (5) only provides that any person who was member of the society as on 30th June of the year immediately preceding to that year in which such election was due and whose name was not included in the final list of voters, may apply to the Collector for getting his name included in the final list of voters. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 provides for enquiry in such situation. According to Division Bench question of challenge to membership of persons who are included in the list of voters is not covered by provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of 1971. In para 32, the Division Bench also held sub-rule (5) did not affect ratio of this Court in Dhondiba's case (supra). 16. A close consideration of Eknath's case would show that in that case question before Division Bench was neither about the scope of enquiry under Rule 6(6) or (7) nor about the exclusion of members from voters list but 3387 persons were enrolled as members by the Co-operative Society on the last day of cut off date and the question was whether Collector can go into the objections relating to grant of membership to 3387 persons under Rule 6(6). Apparently such objections were not covered under sub-rule (5) of Rule 6. 17. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 enables member whose name has not been included in the final list of voters prepared by Collector under sub-rule (4) and who desires of being registered as voter may apply to the Collector in prescribed form within a period of 15 days from the date of displaying of final list of voters. 17. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 enables member whose name has not been included in the final list of voters prepared by Collector under sub-rule (4) and who desires of being registered as voter may apply to the Collector in prescribed form within a period of 15 days from the date of displaying of final list of voters. If such an application is received by the Collector, under Rule 6(6), the said application is forwarded to District Deputy Registrar for enquiry and after holding the enquiry the District Deputy Registrar submits report to the Collector along with his recommendations within time prescribed and under Rule 6(7), the Collector is then required to apply his mind to such report and give his decision. If the Collector decides that name of the Applicant should be registered as voter in the list prepared, necessary modification is done in the list. It would be thus seen that while making amendment in Rule 6, by inserting sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) the Government ensured that a person who is member is not deprived of his valuable right to vote if his name has been excluded in preparation of final list under sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 because the enquiry under 6(1) is mechanical, narrow, limited and of summary nature. The amendment by way of sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) provides an opportunity further to such member to make an application before the Collector that he has been wrongly excluded from the final list of voters and his name should be included. The question before me is the scope of enquiry on an application made under sub-rule (5) and whether such enquiry contemplates going into the question of default under section 26 of the Act of 1960. 18. Under Rule 5 the provisional list of voters is required to contain the names, fathers or husband's name, surname, if any, of every person entitled to be registered as a voter with such other particulars as may be necessary to identify him. Rule 6(1) provides that on preparation of provisional list of voters, claims and objections shall be invited and any omission or error in respect of name or address or other particulars in the list may be brought to the notice of the Collector by any member of society concerned who is voter. Rule 6(1) provides that on preparation of provisional list of voters, claims and objections shall be invited and any omission or error in respect of name or address or other particulars in the list may be brought to the notice of the Collector by any member of society concerned who is voter. Any person who makes claim or raised any objection to the provisional list of voters is required to do so by filing separate petition and such petition under Rule 6(3) must state grounds on which claim is based or objection is raised. Under 6(4) the Collector on consideration of claim or objection gives his decision in writing to the person concerned and may make necessary corrections in provisional list wherever required. The final list of voters is thus finalised by the Collector under Rule 6(4). On publication of final list of voters within time prescribed any person who is member of society on 30th June of the year immediately preceding the year in which election is due or on such subsequent date as may be fixed by the Collector and whose name has not been included in the final list of voters under sub-rule (4) may apply in writing to the Collector in prescribed form that he desires of being registered as a voter. The Collector forwards such application within 3 days to District Deputy Registrar for enquiry and District Deputy Registrar after making enquiry to the contents of the application submits his report to the Collector along with his recommendations within 7 days from the date of receipt of application by him from the Collector. The Collector then considers the application and the report of the District Deputy Registrar and gives his decision in writing to the person concerned. If the Collector decides that such application should be considered as voter, the final list prepared under sub-rule (4) is modified accordingly. If the provisions contained and procedure contemplated under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) are contra-distinguished with the provisions contained and procedure contemplated under sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of Rule 6 it would he apparent that the scope of enquiry under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of Rule 6 cannot be as mechanical as contemplated under sub-rules (1) to (4). If the provisions contained and procedure contemplated under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) are contra-distinguished with the provisions contained and procedure contemplated under sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of Rule 6 it would he apparent that the scope of enquiry under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of Rule 6 cannot be as mechanical as contemplated under sub-rules (1) to (4). When an application is made by a person who is member of the society and whose name has not been included in final list of voters that his name should be registered as voter and he has wrongly been excluded in the final list of voters within time prescribed under sub-rule (5), the Collector has to go into reasons after getting report from District Deputy Registrar why and how name of such member has been excluded from final list of voters. The purpose of the amendment by adding sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) is to ensure that a person who is member of the society is not excluded in the final list of voters if for any reason while preparing final list of voters under sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 his name has been excluded. The amended provisions of sub-rules (5), (6) and (7), therefore, make doubly sure that no member of a cooperative specified society is excluded from the final list of voters. However, if under the statutory provisions of the Act of 1960 or Rules framed thereunder or under byelaws the said member has become disentitled to vote, such question cannot be excluded from the enquiry under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of the Rules. Once a person is admitted as member of society in accordance with the law then his name has to be entered in the register of membership. Such register prepared under section 38 of the Act of 1960 contains the details of the members including his name, address and occupation and the date of his admission as member. The register of membership also contains the date on which any person has ceased to be member. The register of membership is prima facie evidence of the date of admission of membership and date of cessation of membership. The register of membership also contains the date on which any person has ceased to be member. The register of membership is prima facie evidence of the date of admission of membership and date of cessation of membership. Once a person is admitted to the membership of society and his name is entered in the register of membership, he ceases to be a member on tendering of his resignation and acceptance thereof or on transfer of the whole of share or interest in the society to any other member or on his death or removal or expulsion. The name of the member is removed by the committee of society from the register of its membership who has ceased to be a member or stands disqualified by or under the provisions of the Act of 1960 for being member or continuing to be member of a society. Under section 79B of the Act of 1960 Registrar has power to remove member for failure to supply agricultural produce to processing society. Thus, from the survey of the provisions of the Act of 1960, it is abundantly clear that a person who has been admitted to society continues to be a member of the society unless he has ceased to be member by acceptance of his resignation or on the transfer of the whole of the share or interest in the society to any other member or on his death or removal of expulsion. 19. Section 26, however, provides that rights of the membership shall not be exercised till due payments to the society are made. Section 26 reads thus: “Section 26. No rights of membership to be exercised till due payments are made.—No person shall exercise the rights of a member of the society, until he has made such payment to the society in respect of membership, or acquired such interest in the society, as may be prescribed by the Rules, or the bylaws of such society.” 20. A plain reading of section 26 would indicate that a person who has been admitted to the membership of the society and whose name has been registered in the register of membership shall not be entitled to exercise the rights of his membership until he has made payments to the society prescribed by the Rules or byelaws in respect of membership or acquired interest in the society prescribed by the Rules or byelaws. This provision, therefore, provides that a person inducted as member of the society, before he is entitled to exercise his rights of the member of the society must make payment to the society in respect of membership as prescribed by the Rules or byelaws of the society or acquired such interest in the society as prescribed by Rules or byelaws of the society. Section 26 is not confined to right to vote but all rights of a member of a society which definitely includes right to vote. The question, therefore, is whether the Collector in the proceeding under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of Rule 6 of Rules of 1971 can go into the question whether such applicant has made payment to the society in respect of membership as prescribed by the Rules or byelaws of the society or acquired such interest in society or not. 21. A careful reading of section 26 and its plain language which according to me is clear and unambiguous invites of no two interpretations. It provides in unequivocal terms that rights of member shall not be exercised by any person until he has made payment in respect of membership to the society, as prescribed by the Rules or byelaws of the society or has acquired interest in the society as prescribed by the Rules or Byelaws of the society. If the byelaws of the society prescribes the amount of share of membership and mode of its payment and if such payment is not made, then under section 26 he is deprived from exercising the rights of member of the society which necessarily shall include the right to vote. In my view, therefore, if the occasion arises in the proceeding under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) the Collector can go into the question whether a person has made payment to the society in respect of membership as prescribed by the Rules or byelaws of the society or not. Such exercise by the Collector cannot be said to be beyond his competence or power. It is true that Collector cannot in the garb of enquiry under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) hold the exercise whether such person is entitled to be a member or not. If the Collector in such enquiry goes into entitlement to membership of person shown in the register of members, it would be without jurisdiction. It is true that Collector cannot in the garb of enquiry under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) hold the exercise whether such person is entitled to be a member or not. If the Collector in such enquiry goes into entitlement to membership of person shown in the register of members, it would be without jurisdiction. Lack of Collector's jurisdiction in making enquiry of entitlement to membership of a person shown in the register of members, however, must not be confused and mixed up when a question arises before him in the proceedings under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of Rule 6 whether such person can exercise right to vote or not, and, whenever such question arises, in my view, the Collector has power to consider the said question in the light of section 26 of the Act of 1960. Otherwise statutory provision of section 26 of the Act of 1960 would be rendered nugatory. However, the said question has to be decided in summary way only based on application made under rule 6(5) and the report received from District Deputy Registrar under rule 6(6). The report of District Deputy Registrar under rule 6(6) obviously has to be based on record and accounts maintained by the society in accordance with Act of 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. The enquiry under rule 6(6) cannot be enlarged by embarking upon enquiry against society contemplated in Chapter VIII of Act of 1960 including the questions whether the records and books of the accounts have been properly maintained or not by the society. While dealing with an application under Rule 6(5) of Rules of 1971 by an applicant for inclusion of his name in final list of voters, if the Collector or for that matter District Deputy Registrar inspects and checks the record and books of account maintained by the society to find its correctness, I am afraid such course is not permissible. The questions whether the society has maintained its record and books of account properly or not?; whether transactions of society are duly reflected in its record and books or not?; and whether entries in the record and books of account are genuine or doubtful are foreign to the scope of enquiry under Rule 6(6) of Rules of 1971. The order passed by the Collector, if viewed in this background of legal position, cannot stand particularly on points Nos. 2 and 3. The order passed by the Collector, if viewed in this background of legal position, cannot stand particularly on points Nos. 2 and 3. The Collector has based his order on the report of inquiry squad which in turn has gone into the correctness of the various entries made in the record and books of account maintained by Shriram Karkhana. Such enquiry is beyond the scope of Rule 6(5), (6) and (7). 22. Legal position being clear now the question may also be examined whether Collector was justified in holding more than 10000 members as defaulters under section 26 of the Act of 1960 while deciding points Nos. 2 and 3. Shriram Karkhana in its register of members maintained under section 38 of Act of 1960 had 10,687 members on the relevant date. All of them were existing members when the byelaws were amended on 14-7-1995 and approved by the Registrar on 7-9-1995 whereby value of the share was increased from rupees 1000/- to 2000/-. The relevant clauses of amended byelaws read thus : “7. Issued share capital of the society will be rupees 264 lacs as under: 1. 12000 shares of face value of rupees 2000/- each for producer members.... rupees 240 lacs 2. 200 shares of face value of rupees 2000/- each to be allotted to Cooperative Societies and Non-Suearcane growers. 3. 1000 redeemable preferable shares of rupees 2000/- each to be allotted to Government of Maharashtra. 8. The amount of Share should be paid as under : 1. Face value of each share will he rupees 2000/- out of which rupees 500/- is to be paid along with application. (Note - After allotment of share, concern member will be informed in writing separately) 2. After information of allotment of shares amount of rupees 1000/- for each share should be paid within a period of one month so as to complete the amount of rupees 1500/-. 3. Balance amount of allotted share, is to be paid within a month after written demand from Board of Directors. (Note - A Board of Directors have a right to extend the period of above sub-clause 2 and 3) 4. If any share, held by more than one person, the responsibility of payment of share capital Jointly and severally. 5. Whatever narrated in sub-clause 2.3.4 as above balance amount of share will be deducted from sugarcane bills of concerned share holder. 9. If any share, held by more than one person, the responsibility of payment of share capital Jointly and severally. 5. Whatever narrated in sub-clause 2.3.4 as above balance amount of share will be deducted from sugarcane bills of concerned share holder. 9. (A) If any shareholder has not paid due amount within a period prescribed by Board of Directors, Board of Directors can forfeit amount of such share and share amount. But in such case a period of one year must he given and after issuing show cause notice of 15 days for non compliance the share amount and share can be forfeited. The society will become owner of such shares and such shares can be reallotted as per byelaws. (B) Without losing a right of sub-clause 'A', the balance share amount is in arrears, the Board of Directors can charge a interest on such amount not exceeding 12 per cent per annum. (C) The Board of Directors may decide the ratio of area under sugarcane and holding the shores. As per above ratio the Board of Directors may suggest the concern shareholder to purchase additional shares. The Board of Directors will decide how to pay the amount of excess shares. The Board of Directors have a right to recover the due amount of excess shares by way of deducting the amount from sugarcane bills or time deposits as per bye-laws No. 65(b). In such case the Board of Directors will grant and issue an order to remit the due amount of excess shares within 3 years from the date of issue of an order. (There is no binding on Karkhana to accept sugarcane more than 25 acres of shareholder.) (D) At the time of expansion of crushing capacity if additional shares are to be allotted then preference should be given to new members from Area of Operation. If new members are not will to become members then shares will be allotted to existing members as per their cane holding.” 23. It appears that on 16-10-1995 the Managing Director of the Shriram Karkhana issued notices to the members calling upon them to pay the increased share money within one month from the receipt of notice. The Board of Directors two days thereafter held its meeting on 18-10-1995 and by its resolution extended time for payment of increased value of share money by one year. The Board of Directors two days thereafter held its meeting on 18-10-1995 and by its resolution extended time for payment of increased value of share money by one year. The Annual General Meeting of Shriram Karkhana held on 27-3-1996 extended further time to pay balance of the face value of share by 31-3-1997. Can in the aforesaid circumstances it be said that the affected members which were more than 10,000 have not made such payment to the society in respect of membership prescribed by the rules or byelaws of the society. The answer will he simply in the negative. Firstly, the amended byelaws do not ex facie prescribe the increase in the share value to be paid by existing members and particularly within specified time. There is no dispute that all the affected more than 10,000 members were already existing members when the byelaws were amended on 14-7-1995, by the Annual General Meeting and approved by Registrar on 7-9-1995. They had also paid the then prescribed value of share in accordance with the existing byclaws. Even if it be assumed that under amended byelaws, the existing members were liable to pay increased face value of each share, there is no mode prescribed for such payment in the byelaws. The clauses (7) and (8) of the amended byelaws as reproduced above would show that face value of the share was fixed at rupees 2000/- and the mode of payment prescribed that rupees 500/- is to be paid along with application. After information of allotment, share amount of rupees 1000/- is further required to be paid within a period of one month to complete the amount of rupees 1500/- and remaining amount of rupees 500/- is required to be paid within a month after written demand from Board of Directors. The byelaw (8) apparently would not be applicable to the existing members but shall apply to the new applicants. The byelaw (8) apparently would not be applicable to the existing members but shall apply to the new applicants. The expression “until he has made such payments to the society in respect of membership and, as may be prescribed by the rules or byelaws of such society” appearing in section 26 clearly indicates that a person can be denied from exercising the rights of member of society if he has not made payment to the society in respect of membership as prescribed by rules or byelaws of the society or has not acquired the interest in the society as prescribed but not otherwise. The byelaws do not prescribe the mode of payment of increased share value by existing members and, therefore, the existing members on its face cannot be said to be defaulters on the relevant date i.e. 31-12-1995. Besides that it would be seen that though on 16-10-1995 the Managing Director of Shriram Karkhana issued notices to the existing members calling upon them to pay increased share money within one month from receipt of notice, the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 18-10-1995 by its resolution extended time for payment of increased value of share money by one year. Thus, according to resolution dated 18-10-1995, the time is extended for payment of increased value of share money by members upto 18-10-1996. The cut-off date is admittedly 31-12-1995. The Annual General Meeting of Shriram Karkhana held on 27-3-1996 extended further time to pay balance of the face value of the share by 31-3-1997 and accordingly the time for payment of increased value of share money stands extended to 31-3-1997. If a member is to be denied from exercising the rights of member of society including right to vote then such provision has to be strictly construed. The aforesaid facts, in my view, clearly demonstrate that members whose names were registered in the register of members could not have been excluded from the final list of voters on the ground that they were defaulters under section 26 because they had not made payment of increased share value. Assuming that byelaw No. 8 is applicable to the existing members, then it would be seen that each of the existing members had deposited the value of the existing share amount of rupees 1000/-. They were only required to pay the increased share amount of rupees 1000/-. Assuming that byelaw No. 8 is applicable to the existing members, then it would be seen that each of the existing members had deposited the value of the existing share amount of rupees 1000/-. They were only required to pay the increased share amount of rupees 1000/-. Clause 2 of the byelaw 8 says that on information of allotment, share amount of rupees 1000/- for each share should be paid within a period of one month so as to complete the amount of rupees 1500/- and under clause 3 balance amount of allotted share was required to be paid within a month after written demand from Board of Directors. The Board of Directors have been given right to extend the period mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of bylaw 8. The Board of Directors by its resolution dated 18-10-1995 extended time for payment of increased value of share money by one year. Thus extension of time by Board of Directors was within its competence and the said amount had not become payable and, therefore, the existing members could not have been held defaulters under section 26. Mr. Gangal, learned special Counsel for State submitted that the amount became due as soon as amended byelaws came into force and, therefore, nonpayment of the increased amount in respect of membership by the existing members disentitled them to exercise of their rights as members. He sought to submit that 'due' means 'payable' which would be apparent from any standard English dictionary. It may be observed that the words “due” and “payable” do not find place in the text of section 26. The plain language of section 26 does not support the contention of Mr. Gangal for the reasons already stated above. The reasons given by the Collector in his order dated 18-9-1996 while dealing with points Nos. 2 and 3 are difficult to be appreciated. The Collector has referred to judgment of this Court in (Sugandhilal v. Pannalal)5, 1964 C.T.D. 305. In Sugandhilal's case, it has been held that on the increase in the share value by the society unless the existing members are served with notice to pay balance of the increased amount they cannot be termed as defaulters and their voting rights are not affected. In Sugandhilal's case, it has been held that on the increase in the share value by the society unless the existing members are served with notice to pay balance of the increased amount they cannot be termed as defaulters and their voting rights are not affected. Applying the ratio of Sugandhilal, the Collector overlooked to consider that in the present case that though in the notices given by the Managing Director on 16-10-1995 the existing members were called upon to pay the increased amount of share value within one month but the Board of Directors vide its resolution dated 18-10-1995 extended the time for payment by one year and that in the Annual General Meeting held on 27-3-1996 it has been further extended by 31-3-1997. The existing members thus cannot be held defaulters under section 26 and their voting rights are not affected. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the observations made and the order dated 18-9-1996 relating to points Nos. 2 and 3 therein cannot be sustained. 24. As regards the conclusion reached by Collector in his impugned order on point-1, the learned special Counsel for the State could not justify its correctness. In the enquiry under rule 6(6), the question could not have been gone into whether the member whose name appears in the name of register is in possession of land within the area of operation of the society in the capacity of owner, protected tenant or ordinary tenant and whether he has been producing sugarcane on at least half an acre of land. The order of Collector on point 1 has to go as well. 25. Core issue having been dealt with, now the preliminary objections may be considered. At the outset it may be stated that none of the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Gangal and Mr. Anturkar makes out any case for dismissal of the present writ petitions. The two writ petitions filed earlier by some of the members of society bearing Nos. 3038/96 and 3460/96 challenging the order of the Collector dated 5-7-1996 appear to have been dismissed as withdrawn at the time when the Court was about to dismiss them. No liberty was granted in those writ petitions for filing fresh writ petition. The third writ petition 3922/96 also came to be dismissed apparently for the self same reasons by this Court on 1-8-1996. No liberty was granted in those writ petitions for filing fresh writ petition. The third writ petition 3922/96 also came to be dismissed apparently for the self same reasons by this Court on 1-8-1996. It would be pertinent to note that in the present set of writ petitions I am not concerned with the order dated 5-7-1996 passed by the Collector which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions Nos. 3038, 3460 and 3922 of 1996 and the process upto 1-8-1996. Till the decision in the previous three writ petitions aforestated, final list of voters under sub-rule (4) of rule 6 was not published. The said final list of voters was published on 2-8-1996 and said list was challenged in the writ petition No 4678/96. When that writ petition came before me, Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7 raised the preliminary objection that the persons whose names have been deleted from final voters list dated 2-8-1996, objections/applications under sub-rule (5) of rule 6 have been made by such persons and those objections/applications were pending before the Collector and, therefore, writ petition should not be entertained. That writ petition No. 4678/96 was disposed of by me on 6-9-1996 taking into consideration the statement made by Assistant Government Pleader that the objections/applications made by all such persons shall be decided by Collector in accordance with law on its individual merits in exercise of his power under sub-rule (7) of rule 6 of 1971. I accordingly directed the Collector to decide the objections/applications made by excluded persons from final list of voters on individual merits uninfluenced by his previous order dated 5-7-1996. Pursuant thereto the present order dated 18-9-1996 has been passed by the Collector. Substantially before me, therefore, is challenge to the order dated 18-9-1996 passed by the Collector and the said order was neither challenged previously nor was subject matter of challenge in any of the writ petitions earlier. Scope of enquiry under sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of rule 6 was also not the subject matter in any of the writ petitions filed earlier by some of the members of the society and also could not have been because the stage of sub-rule (5) of rule 6 had not reached by that time. The judgment relied by Mr. Anturkar in Forward Construction Co. (supra) has, therefore, no application in view of the aforestated facts. The judgment relied by Mr. Anturkar in Forward Construction Co. (supra) has, therefore, no application in view of the aforestated facts. First preliminary objection is accordingly overruled. As regards second objection raised by learned Counsel for the State and Mr. Anturkar about maintainability of writ petition on the ground that since process of election is started, this Court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, and, dispute relating to it must be left to be resolved by way of substantive election petition under section 144-T of the Act of 1960, it may be observed that this is a rule of prudence and not a rule of jurisdiction. No doubt the High Court is always slow and sparingly invokes its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India when there is challenge to preparation of voters list but where the exceptional and extraordinary case is made-out that the entire exercise of election would be farce if the process of election is completed on the basis of grossly invalid voters list depriving majority of members of the society from exercising right to vote, in my view, case is made-out for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and the interference by this Court. The edifice of valid election is built on valid list of voters and where there is wholesale exclusion of members from final list of voters, shockingly to the extent of 97% on unjustifiable grounds, the High Court cannot imprudently refuse to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and observe that since the election process has started the dispute should be resolved through election petition. The very objective and purpose of rules of 1971 particularly after insertion of sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) in rule 6 that no member be excluded from right to vote unless of course he is disentitled to vote under law would be defeated if this Court refuses to interfere with the erroneous, unjustified and illegal order of Collector defranchising more than 97% of the members of the society on the ground that legality and correctness of such order should be challenged after election is over by way of election petition under section 144T of the Act of 1960. Each case has to be examined in its own facts. Each case has to be examined in its own facts. A remedy under Article 226 by its nature is extraordinary and is invoked only in deserving cases but it would be too much to say that once the process of election has been set in motion, in no case the High Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The judgments relied upon by the parties also lay down the aforesaid proposition and need not be dealt with at length. Ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in the matters relating to preparation of voters list and process of election once it has been set in motion, but there is no rule prohibiting the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India in an exceptional case. The present case being an exceptional case where more than 97% members have been excluded from right to vote and their applications for registering them as voters in the final list of voters has been rejected under sub-rule (7) of rule 6 on untenable and unjustifiable grounds, in my view, a case is made out for interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Out of the 10,687 members, if only 271 members have been registered as voters in the final list of voters, and rest have been excluded illegally and unlawfully despite their making applications under Rule 6(5), a clear case for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction is made out and there is no escape but to interfere with such order. 26. Yet another objection raised by learned Counsel Mr. Anturkar that writ petitions deserve to be dismissed also because these petitions involve disputed questions of facts needs to be noted to brush aside. I have examined the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Collector dated 18-9-1996 and the scope of enquiry under Rule 6(5), (6) and (7) on broad facts apparent on the record and that did not involve disputed questions of facts as urged by Mr. Anturkar. 27. The argument advanced by Mr. Jahagirdar that impugned order passed by the Collector is not in conformity with the order passed by this Court on 6-9-1996 does not remain of any significance in view of discussion made hereinabove by me. 28. In the result, these six writ petitions are partly allowed. Anturkar. 27. The argument advanced by Mr. Jahagirdar that impugned order passed by the Collector is not in conformity with the order passed by this Court on 6-9-1996 does not remain of any significance in view of discussion made hereinabove by me. 28. In the result, these six writ petitions are partly allowed. The order passed by the Collector, Satara dated 18-9-1996 and impugned in the present set of writ petitions is set aside so far as exclusion of members covered in point-1, point-2 and point-3 of the said order are concerned. The Collector, Satara is directed to pass appropriate order by including the names of members of these 3 categories covered in point-1, point-2 and point-3 of the impugned order and modify the final list of voters under Rule 6(7) of Rules of 1971 and then proceed in accordance with law in holding and conducting elections of the Committee (Board of Directors) to the said Shriram Karkhana. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs. Certified copy expedited. 29. Mr. Gangal, learned special Counsel appearing for State orally prays for stay of this order for a period of four weeks and also submits that for a period of four weeks the election programme will not be declared. Order accordingly. Order accordingly. -----