JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Shri R.N. Dhorde with Shri V.D. Hon, the learned Counsel for the petitioners; Shri S.B. Bhapkar, the learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri P.B. Shirsath, Adv. for respondent No. 4. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the respective parties. 3. By an order dated April 28, 1999, the Collector, Latur directed to hold the election of the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 4 society which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. The petition, no doubt, has a chequered history. However, for the purposes of decision in the present matter, only relevant facts will be referred to in this order. 4. Writ Petition No. 469/99 was filed by one Shri Vyankatrao Yadav in connection with same allegations of the same society in which the relief was sought to the effect that the respondents therein be restrained from acting as Managing Committee members, Latur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Latur (respondent No. 4) which is hereinafter referred to as "the Bank" for the purposes of brevity. Further relief was sought to the effect that neither the Administrator nor the Board of Administrators should be appointed on the said Bank. In fact, by that time the elections of the society of the society were due. Considering the facts of the petition, this Court by an order dated 28-1-1999 directed the Collector, Latur (respondent No. 2) to hold elections of the Managing Committee of the Bank by the end of May 1999 and further specific direction was given that till then the then existing Managing Committee should not be superseded though the term had already lapsed. 5. In pursuance of the above-said direction, it is clear from the record that the matter proceeded further in the Office of the Collector so as to enable them to hold the elections of the Managing Committee of the Bank. The record indicates that, in fact, the Collector had received in his Office the provisional list of voters in the last week of February 1999 and to be precise, on 27-2-1999. However, during the intervening period, there was, again, certain disputes as regards the list of voters and, therefore, the present respondent No. 4 Bank itself approached this Court vide Writ Petition No. 1100/99. However, during the intervening period, there was, again, certain disputes as regards the list of voters and, therefore, the present respondent No. 4 Bank itself approached this Court vide Writ Petition No. 1100/99. Though the point was different, the subject remained to be the same. This Court, therefore, after hearing the parties, in that petition, on March 30, 1999 passed an order to the following effect:--- "The respondents to comply with the order dated 20-1-99 in W.P. No. 469/99 and hold the elections by the end of May 1999 by following the Procedures and Rules prescribed therefor and shall take into consideration the voters list Exh. 1 to petition submitted by the petitioners. Proceedings of the meeting dated 22-2-1999 are not to be taken into consideration. Petition stands disposed of." From the above order, it is absolutely clear that this Court reiterated that the elections be held by the end of May 1999. However, the said direction is specifically explained by the Court itself mentioning that the same should be done by following the procedure and the rules prescribed therefor and further that the voters list which was annexed at Annexure 1 with that petition should also be taken into consideration. One another important direction is given in that order that the proceedings of the meeting dated 22-2-99 were not to be taken into consideration at all. This petition came to be disposed of with the above-said direction. Necessary reference to this resolution dated 22nd February 1999 will be made in this order at an appropriate stage in the subsequent paragraphs. 6. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court, the Collector, Latur on 6th April 1999 again published a provisional list of voters, naturally with an intention to complete the formalities so as to convert it into a final list of voters. This Court need not dilate on this point at this stage as ultimately the final list of voters came to be published on April 26, 1999. The moment the final list of voters is published, the next stage is to follow the provisions of Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the purposes of brevity). Rule 16 provides for the appointment of dates etc. for various stages of an election. The moment the final list of voters is published, the next stage is to follow the provisions of Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the purposes of brevity). Rule 16 provides for the appointment of dates etc. for various stages of an election. The Collector is supposed to follow the procedure as has been given in Rule 16 after publication of the final list of voters. It appears that the Collector had undertaken the task of completion of the further steps and in pursuance of this, the Collector on 28th April, 1999 published the election programme, as is clear from Page 50 of the Paperbook of this petition. Various stages have been mentioned therein as regards the conduct of the election, such as, the last date of nomination is given as 4th May 1999; date of scrutiny as 5th May 1999; publication of final list of contesting candidates as 6-5-99; date of withdrawal as 25th May 1999; the final list of contesting candidates as 29th May 1999 and if voting is required to be undergone, the date of voting as 4-6-1999. Rule (1) (a) of Rule 16 of the Rules specifically directs : "The Collector in consultation with the Registrar, in the case of societies falling under section 73-G(1)(i), and in consultation with the District Deputy Registrar, in the case of societies falling under those clauses of section 73-G(1), shall draw (not earlier than thirty days of the date of display of the final list of voters of a society under Rule 7) the schedule for elections, and by order in form 1 appoint:--- ......................................" From this sub-rule, it is absolutely clear that the election programme which the Collector is supposed to schedule in pursuance of that Rule shall not be so scheduled and, in any case, not earlier than thirty days from the date of final list of voters of the society under Rule 7 of the Rules. It is not disputed before this Court that the final list of voters has been displayed on 26th April 1999 which clearly means the programme which is to be drawn in pursuance of Rule 16 would not be, by any stretch of imagination, before the expiry of thirty days therefrom. It is not disputed before this Court that the final list of voters has been displayed on 26th April 1999 which clearly means the programme which is to be drawn in pursuance of Rule 16 would not be, by any stretch of imagination, before the expiry of thirty days therefrom. However, the facts on the record clearly indicate otherwise that after publication of the final list the programme is drawn just on the very second day i.e. on 28th April, 1999 which is per se totally in contravention of the Rules. If the very basis of the election is in contravention of the provisions of law or the Rules, everything followed thereafter on the basis of that programme, is bound to be in violation of the provisions of the law and Rules. It would not be an inappropriate to mention at this stage itself that there is specific intention to grant thirty days time after the display of the final list of voters and before the drawing of the election programme. The said purpose can be very well read from the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules which has given specific timings for certain activities to be undertaken or which are likely to be undertaken in such matters. The relevant provision would be sub-rule (5) and Rule 6 which gives fifteen days time for a particular voter whose name has not been included in the voters list to make an application in writing to the Collector in Form 1. The Collector thereafter is given three days time to forward such forms to the District Deputy Registrar for necessary enquiry and the District Deputy Registrar is, thereafter, granted seven days time to complete the enquiry and to remit back the matter to the Collector with his report and thereafter, the Collector, in his own discretion, after having been satisfied, may make necessary modification in the final list of voters. Now, if we calculate these dates, it is absolutely clear that 25 days are consumed in this process and keeping the margin of five days more, the election programme has to be drawn. Now, if we calculate these dates, it is absolutely clear that 25 days are consumed in this process and keeping the margin of five days more, the election programme has to be drawn. When the Rules are so perfectly drafted with a particular intention, this Court is unable to fathom as to why and what prompted the learned Collector, Latur to make an undue haste in drawing the election programme, just within two days after display of the final list of voters. It would be appropriate at this stage itself to refer to one more provision i.e. sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules. It further gives a chance to the society itself to change its representative or delegate on the federal society. For that purpose also time can be utilised out of those thirty days which are granted by Rule 16(1) of the Rules. 7. This matter was heard for the first time on 3rd May 1999 by this Court for admission. Having noticed a glaring illegality, this Court was compelled to issue notice to the respondents. In pursuance of the notice, all the respondents have appeared. Since the matter happened to be an urgent one, the notice was made returnable on 4th May 1999 itself. 8. Shri R.N. Dhorde, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner scathingly assailed the decision of the Collector, Latur labelling it to be a total high-handedness on the part of the Collector and further Collector's utter negligence in by-passing the provision of Rule 16 of the Rules. Shri Dhorde, argued that if the orders of this Court which are referred to earlier, are read, those orders initially direct that the Collector shall not by-pass the provisions of law and the Rules. On the contrary, according to Shri Dhorde and as is clear from the record, all those directions were to be complied with by the Collector as regards the election by the end of May, strictly by following the provisions of the law and the Rules in that behalf. The Collector was not given a concession to give a go-bye to any of the provisions of law. Even otherwise, according to Shri Dhorde, the election programme clearly demonstrates that the election in no case can be completed by the end of May 1999. The Collector was not given a concession to give a go-bye to any of the provisions of law. Even otherwise, according to Shri Dhorde, the election programme clearly demonstrates that the election in no case can be completed by the end of May 1999. If this is the situation, according to Shri Dhorde, there was no necessity for the Collector to make such a haste and to pretend as if he was going to comply with the orders and direction given by this Court before the end of May, 1999. I am no doubt much impressed by the additional argument of Shri Dhorde that, in fact, it was open for the Collector to have moved this Court for extension of time which would not have been much difficult for him in the present situation. However, according to Shri Dhorde, this undue haste clearly smells something foul than the real and genuine necessity to hold the election in accordance with the law. This Court does not intend to go into all those details. However, the fact remains that what has been said by Shri Dhorde, could have been no doubt done by the Collector. 9. Shri S.B. Bhapkar, the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to substantiate the order and the action of the Collector made a feeble attempt to argue that since he was to comply with the order of the Court he was required to make the undue alleged haste. However, according to him, but for the intention to comply with the order, there was no other intention on the part of the Collector to make such a haste. To understand the argument of Shri Bhapkar, he took me again through both the orders which are passed by this Court in earlier two petitions. It is absolutely clear that the Collector was not left at liberty to evolve and follow his own procedure of conduct of the election. This Court has specifically directed to hold the elections strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made therefor. Therefore, this argument of Shri Bhapkar is far from appealing and is of no consequence. 10. Shri Dhorde, also tried to assail the action of the Collector as having been tainted with mala fides and for this purpose Shri Dhorde invited my attention to Exh. "F" Page 39 of the petition. Therefore, this argument of Shri Bhapkar is far from appealing and is of no consequence. 10. Shri Dhorde, also tried to assail the action of the Collector as having been tainted with mala fides and for this purpose Shri Dhorde invited my attention to Exh. "F" Page 39 of the petition. No doubt, this document itself speaks in volumes. However that point being not of much importance for the decision of the present petition, this Court refrains itself from making any comment thereon at this stage. In the circumstances, the fact remains that the election programme declared by the Collector, is totally in contravention of the provisions of law and the Rules and it is difficult to sustain such an action and order of the Collector. 11. As a last weapon in his armoury, Shri Bhapkar, learned A.G.P. has tried to argue that since the election programme is already declared and today i.e. 4th May 1999 being the last date of submitting nomination papers, it would not be appropriate to interfere at this stage as the other remedies would be available to the petitioners by way of an election petition etc. In ordinary course, this Court declines to interfere in such matters at such a stages, however when a glaring illegality is there, this Court would find this as one of those exceptional cases wherein interference even at this stage itself is necessary so as to nip the illegality in the bud itself. This Court, therefore, exercising its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, hereby quashes and sets aside the order dated 28-4-99 and the election programme declared by the Collector. The Collector is further directed to publish a fresh election programme exactly after completion of thirty days, in accordance with the provisions of the law and Rules as provided therefor. The thirty days are to be calculated from the date of publication of the final voters list i.e. 26th April, 1999 and, thereafter the election programme will be drawn strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16. It is further made clear that there will be no change whatsoever in the list of voters and the voters list which was made final on 26-4-99 will be the only list of voters, except without curtailing the rights of the voters under Rule 5.2 and Rule 6 of the Rules, 1971. It is further made clear that there will be no change whatsoever in the list of voters and the voters list which was made final on 26-4-99 will be the only list of voters, except without curtailing the rights of the voters under Rule 5.2 and Rule 6 of the Rules, 1971. In the circumstances, the petition needs to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. 12. Rule is made absolute in the above said terms with no costs. Petition allowed.