JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2.Rule, returnable forthwith. 3.The petitioners are praying for a writ to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29-4-98 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednager, whereby the said authority has ordered to delete the names of 184 members of the respondent No. 4 Co-operative Society from the provisional Voters' List while exercising his powers under Rule 56-B(4) of the Elections Rules. Pursuant to the said order, the final or revised Voters' List was published on 12-5-98. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29-4-98 and the final Voters' List published on 12-5-98. 4.To appreciate the contentions of the petitioners, the following few relevant facts are required to be stated: On 19-12-1997 the Election programme was declared. On 22-12-1997 a provisional Voters' List was published and objections were required to be submitted to the said provisional Voters' List by 5-1-1998. The District Deputy Registrar was to decide the objections, if any, by 15-1-1998 and a final Voters' List was to be published on 22-1-1998. One Shri Ramesh Dhrupatrao Kolate had raised an objection on 24-12-1997 to the provisional Voters' List for inclusion of 192 members in the said Voters' List. Since Shri Kolate was not included in the above petition, he filed a Civil Application No. 4631 of 98 praying for a permission to intervene and join as a party in the petition. By an order dated 23-11-1998, and by consent of the parties, his prayer was granted and he was permitted to be joined as respondent No. 5 in the petition. Shri R.S. Deshmukh, the learned A.G.P. submitted that the present writ petition was not maintainable under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India as against the impugned order dated 29-4-1998, the petitioners had an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of filing a revision under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Secondly, the learned A.G.P. submitted that the Voters' List dated 26-3-98 was not a final list though it was declared to be a final Voters' List as per the signatures and stamps put on by the authority. According to the learned A.G.P. there was a mistake in doing so and, therefore, immediately on the next day i.e. 27-3-1998 the authority had addressed a letter to the society that it was not a final Voters' List. According to the learned A.G.P. there was a mistake in doing so and, therefore, immediately on the next day i.e. 27-3-1998 the authority had addressed a letter to the society that it was not a final Voters' List. It was stated in the said letter that the office of the District Deputy Registrar had published the same as final Voters' List inadvertently. According to the learned A.G.P. the actual and real final Voters' List was published on 12-5-98 after considering the objections raised to the provisional Voters' List. On the aforesaid main grounds, the learned A.G.P. has prayed that the writ petition should be dismissed. In reply, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the remedy under section 154 of the Act is not an alternative or efficacious remedy as a matter of right and according to him, the impugned order dated 29-4-98 and the final Voters' List dated 12-5-98 could be challenged only by way of filing writ petition. The provisions under section 154 of the Act empowers the State Government and the Registrar to call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceedings of any matter other than those referred to in section 149(9) where any decision or order has been passed by any subordinate officer and no appeal lies against such decision or order for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and as to the regularity of such proceedings. It is an admitted position before me that the impugned orders could not be challenged by filing appeal under the Act. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the (Everest Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Bombay v. The State of Maharashtra and others)1, 1996 Mh.L.J. 643 .The Supreme Court had construed the aforesaid section 154 and its ambit. The following two paragraphs would clarify the legal position. The Supreme Court had specifically posed a question i.e. has a party a right to move the State Government under section 154? The Supreme Court has answered the said question in the following paragraphs: "4. The following two paragraphs would clarify the legal position. The Supreme Court had specifically posed a question i.e. has a party a right to move the State Government under section 154? The Supreme Court has answered the said question in the following paragraphs: "4. There is no doubt that section 154 is potential but not compulsive power is reposed in Government to intervene to do justice when occasion demands it and of the occasion for its exercise, Government is made the sole judge. This power can be exercised in all cases except in a case in which a similar power has already been exercised by the Tribunal under section 149(9) of the Act. The exception was considered necessary because the legality or the propriety of an order having once been considered, it would be an act of supererogation to consider the matter twice. It follows., therefore, that a Government can exercise its power under section 154 in all cases with one exception only and that the finality of the order under section 23(3) does not restrict the exercise of the power. The word 'final' in this context means that the order is not subject to an ordinary appeal or revision but it does not touch the special power legislatively conferred on Government. The Government was in error in considering that it had no jurisdiction in this case for it obviously had. 5. There remains the question whether a party has a right to move Government. The Tribune Trust case is distinguishable and cannot help the submission that Government cannot be moved at all. The words of the two enactments are not materially equal. The Income Tax Act used the words 'suo motu' which do not figure here. It is, of course, true that the words "on an application of a party" which occur in section 150 of the Act and in similar enactments in other Acts, are also not to be found. But that does not mean that a party is prohibited from moving Government. As Government is not compelled to take action, unless it thinks fit, the party who moves Government cannot claim that he has a right of appeal or revision. On the other hand, Government should welcome such applications because they draw the attention of Government to cases in some of which, Government may be interested to intervene. As Government is not compelled to take action, unless it thinks fit, the party who moves Government cannot claim that he has a right of appeal or revision. On the other hand, Government should welcome such applications because they draw the attention of Government to cases in some of which, Government may be interested to intervene. In many statutes, as for example the two major procedural Codes, such language has not only not inhibited the making of applications to the High Court, but has been considered to give a right to obtain intervention, although the mere making of the application has not clothed a party with any rights beyond bringing a matter to the notice of the Court . After this is done, it is for the Court to consider whether to act or not. The extreme position does not obtain here because there is no right to interfere in the same way as in a judicial proceeding. Government may act or may not act; the choice is of Government. There is no right to relief as in an appeal or revision under the two Codes. But to say that Government has no jurisdiction at all in the matter is to err, and that is what Government did in this case." 5.It is, therefore, clear that the party cannot claim as a matter of right to move the Government for revision of the impugned orders. If that is so, section 154 cannot be called as an alternative and efficacious remedy. The Supreme Court has indeed, very succinctly described section 154 being potential but not compulsive. This power is reposed in Government to intervene to do justice when occasion demands it and of the occasion for its exercise, the Government is made the sole judge. According to me, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable. The second contention of the learned A.G.P. is that what was termed as final Voters' List, published on 26-3-98 though it bears all the signatures and official stamps put thereon, authenticating the said document as final Voters' List, it cannot be really called so as immediately on the next day i.e. on 27-3-1998, the said officer had informed the Society that the list was inadvertently said to be finalised and that, it should not be treated to be a final Voters' List. It was pointed out that it was only a mistake on the part of the authority and that it would correct it in due course. There is absolutely no doubt and no dispute that the Voters' List dated 26-3-98 was an authenticated document as a final Voters' List. The objections raised by the newly added respondent No. 5 were submitted on 24-12-1997 well before the final date of submission of the objections and the final date for the District Deputy Registrar to decide those objections. If that is so, according to me, the District Deputy Registrar when had finalised the Voters' List on 26-3-98, must have decided the objections or it must be deemed that the District Deputy Registrar had decided the objections and had finalised the list and had published it as the final Voters' List on 26-3-98. Once having done, according to me, it was not open to the District Deputy Registrar to change his mind and recall the said list and tell the Society that it was not a final Voters' List. It was not open to the said authority to have again republished the so called final Voters' List after purporting to decide the objections afresh and giving his decision on 29-4-98 and publish the so called final Voters' List on 12-5-98. In this respect, Rule 56-D is relevant and the same is reproduced for ready reference: "56-D. Claims and objections to the provisional list of Voters', and the final list of voters'.- (1) When any provisional list of Voters' is published for inviting claims and objections, any omission or error in respect of name or address or other particulars in the list may be brought to the notice of the Registrar in writing by any member of the society concerned who is a voter or any representative authorised to vote on behalf of such society during office hours within 15 days from the date of publication of the provisional list of voters'. (2) The Registrar shall, after making such enquiries as deemed necessary in this behalf, consider each claim or objection, and give his decision thereon in writing to the persons concerned within 10 days from the last date prescribed for receiving the claims and objections and the list shall be conclusively final voters' list. (2) The Registrar shall, after making such enquiries as deemed necessary in this behalf, consider each claim or objection, and give his decision thereon in writing to the persons concerned within 10 days from the last date prescribed for receiving the claims and objections and the list shall be conclusively final voters' list. (3) The copies of final list of voters' shall be displayed on the notice board of the Registrar and on the notice board of the office of the District Election Officer and that of the society at least seven days before the declaration of the election programme and in no case later than fifteen days from the finalisation of claims and objections." 6.It will also be relevant to read Rule 56-B alongwith the Rule 56-D. Rule 56-B(1) provides as under: "56-B. Provisional list of voters'.- (1) A provisional list of voters' shall be prepared by every notified society in the year in which the elections of such society is due to be held. The persons who are members as on the date prior to 180 days of the date on which the term of the committee of such society expires, shall be included in the provisional list. If different constituencies are provided in the bye-laws, the names of Voters' shall be arranged constituency-wise as laid down in the bye-laws." 7.If we read this rule carefully, we cannot miss a mandatory flavour which directs every notified society to prepare a provisional list of Voters' in the year, in which the elections of such society are to be held. It is further made essential for the society to include in the aforesaid provisional list of Voters' the persons who are members as on the date prior to 180 days of the date on which the term of the committee of such society expires. The compulsion of compliance with the Rule 56-B(1) is further gathered from subsequent subsections which require the society to furnish such authenticated provisional Voters' list to the authorities which will invite claims and objections from the members of the society. Rule 56-C further provides that the provisional Voters' list must contain all the relevant particulars prescribed in the said rule. Thereafter, comes Rule 56-D whereunder the Registrar is empowered to scrutinise such provisional list and to consider any claims and objections which were invited. Rule 56-C further provides that the provisional Voters' list must contain all the relevant particulars prescribed in the said rule. Thereafter, comes Rule 56-D whereunder the Registrar is empowered to scrutinise such provisional list and to consider any claims and objections which were invited. Any omission or error in respect of the name or address or other particulars in the list is to be considered by the Registrar. It is also pertinent to note that the Rule 56-D(2) has also a mandatory flavour. The Registrar is duty bound to enquire into the claims and objections etc. and he is further obliged to consider each claim or objection and give his decision thereon in writing to the persons concerned and thereafter, he has to prepare the final list which the rule calls as conclusively final voters' list. The Legislature could have used merely the words "final voters' list" but, finality is given conclusiveness by adding the word 'conclusively' and, therefore, we cannot ignore the intention of the Legislature that such a list prepared by the Registrar shall be conclusively final voters' list and there cannot be any change of any nature, in any circumstances. The Legislature definitely contemplated at a particular point of time and end of the consideration of the Voters' list as otherwise the process would continue indefinitely at the instance of interested persons or disgruntled persons who would always be ready to put a spoke in the wheel of the elections. Even the Registrar cannot say that he had published the final Voters' list as is in the present case and that it was done inadvertently or by mistake and that he would withdraw that final Voters' list and that he would republish it thereafter. There is a strict ban even on the authority of the Registrar to continue this process of finalisation of the Voters' list. Having considered the claims and objections as required by the rules and having decided the same as prescribed in an inquiry, which would be in consonance with the principles of natural justice, after hearing the concerned parties, the list which he prepares shall be a conclusively final Voters' list, there is no reversion from this process. The Registrar in our case has committed a blunder by revising the conclusively final Voters' list which was published on 26-3-98 with his signature and office stamp. That was the end of the matter. The Registrar in our case has committed a blunder by revising the conclusively final Voters' list which was published on 26-3-98 with his signature and office stamp. That was the end of the matter. He had no authority to revise a conclusively final Voters' list by informing the society that he had committed a mistake. By the impugned order, he has deleted the names of 184 members from the conclusively final Voters' list which contained 599 Voters'. He has deleted about one-third members from the Voters' list without hearing them. First of all, his action of revising the conclusively final Voters' list itself is bad in law and it is worst for him to have deleted 184 members without lending an ear to such a large number of Voters' who are deprived of their valuable right to vote for and contest the election. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order dated 29-4-98 and the so called final Voters' list declared by him on 12-5-98, both are contrary to the mandatory rules and therefore, they deserve to be quashed and set aside and the same are quashed and set aside. The final Voters' list which was published on 26-3-98 is hereby revived for the ensuing elections. I am also fortified in my view by a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court (N.P. Chapalgaonkar, J.) reported at 1994 Mh.L.J. 1115 (Ramkishan Bhanudas Shinde v. State of Maharashtra)2. The learned Judge has considered section 11 and also Rule 56-D in the similar facts in that case. The learned Judge has succinctly observed the legal position in this respect in the following two paragraphs- "Therefore, in the case of notified societies to which Chapter V-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 applies, any claim or objections can be filed within 15 days of the publication of the provisional list of Voters' and Registrar is required to give decision in respect of the said claim or objection within 10 days from the last day prescribed for receiving the claims and objections. While exercising his jurisdiction under this rule, Registrar invokes power under section 11 but he cannot entertain any claim or objection after prescribed date and alter the final list of Voters' already published. 12. Process of election is required to be completed within a stipulated period and elections are to take place periodically as provided by the statute. While exercising his jurisdiction under this rule, Registrar invokes power under section 11 but he cannot entertain any claim or objection after prescribed date and alter the final list of Voters' already published. 12. Process of election is required to be completed within a stipulated period and elections are to take place periodically as provided by the statute. Therefore, time limit set out for each stage by the Statute and the rules governing that election carries paramount importance, and that should be adhered strictly. To hold that power under section 11 can be exercised by the Registrar to alter the final list of Voters' at any time would be in derogation of the principles of election law. Finality attached to the Voters' list should remain intact till the election results are declared. If the final list of Voters' is also altered, it may result in many anomalies. It is likely that name of candidate whose nomination paper is held valid may also be struck out from the list of Voters' by any subsequent order, this is not permissible in election law as the question whether a particular candidate is qualified or not will have to be determined on the basis of the facts relating to this as they are on the last day of the filing of the nomination paper. Whether a person is qualified to be a voter or not will have to be determined on the date of the publication of the list of Voters'. Once the list is published finally, it cannot be altered by any authority and even by the Registrar acting under section 11 of the Act. 13. If the election process is over, validity of the election can be challenged and if the validity of the list of Voters' is also permissible ground for such challenge, it can be considered in election petition. But till then, voters' list cannot be altered by the exercise of the powers under section 11 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 13. If the election process is over, validity of the election can be challenged and if the validity of the list of Voters' is also permissible ground for such challenge, it can be considered in election petition. But till then, voters' list cannot be altered by the exercise of the powers under section 11 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, Order dated 11-3-1993 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Newasa in Appeal No. 41 of 1993 will have to be set aside." 8.The last but not the least submission made on behalf of the learned A.G.P. Shri Deshmukh is that in any case, the petitioners should have filed a revision under section 154 of the Act, or a dispute under section 91 of the Act wherein all the questions could be resolved. I have already referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court how the remedy under section 154 cannot be considered to be an alternative or efficacious remedy. In the present case, there has been patent illegality in deleting the names of 184 Voters' from the final Voters' list. This action of the authorities was not only in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Rules 56-B, 56-C and 56-D but, was also in total violation of the principles of natural justice as there was no hearing to the aforesaid 184 members who were adversely affected and who were deprived of their valuable right to vote for and contest the election. They have suffered civil consequence at the hands of the authorities for which, according to me, hearing as contemplated under section 56-B and also as contemplated by the principles of natural justice in such circumstances, was essential. I, therefore, find no merits in the submission of the learned A.G.P. that writ petition is no remedy for the petitioners. I am fully fortified in my view by a well considered judgment of our High Court delivered by learned Single Judge (R.M. Lodha, J.) in the case of (Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)3, 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 543 . I am fully fortified in my view by a well considered judgment of our High Court delivered by learned Single Judge (R.M. Lodha, J.) in the case of (Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)3, 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 543 . The ratio of the said judgment is found in the Head note of the judgment, as under: "There is no rule prohibiting exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in an exceptional case - Where names of more than 97% members of society were excluded from the Voters' list and their applications for registering themselves as Voters' in the final list were rejected on untenable and unjustifiable grounds, case for interference under Article 226 made out." 9.The learned Judge has considered all the relevant provisions of the Act and dealt with the case very exhaustively. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. It is also pertinent to mention that all the aforesaid 184 members were the members and Voters' of the society even for the earlier elections and they had voted as members and their membership was never cancelled in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. The action of the Registrar in deleting the 184 members is, therefore, patently illegal and in the aforesaid exceptional circumstance, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 can very well be exhausted, which I have justifiably done. 10.Writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) with a further direction to revive the final Voters' list which was published on 26-3-98 and to hold elections on the basis of the said Voters' list. No order, as to costs. Petition allowed. *****