JUDGMENT - S.B. MHASE, J.:---Heard Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E.P. Sawant, learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Rule, returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 19-8-1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 the Director (Administration) and the Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune under section 77-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The said order is passed in the following circumstances : 3. The petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman of the petitioner No. 2 Co-operative Society. Initially the term of five years of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 was completed on 11-12-1997. However the said term was extended by the Government in view of the provisions of section 73-G(2) by further period of one year by the order dated 11-12-1997 and the extended term of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 sugar factory came to an end on 10-12-1998. Thereafter, the Government has not extended the term of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 although the Government invited the proposal for extension of time from the petitioner by the letter dated 20-1-1999 and that the petitioner submitted the said proposal on 4-2-1999, still the fact remains that the Government has not passed any order on the said proposal on the date when the impugned order under section 77-A was passed by the respondent No. 2, or as on today. One more aspect which needs to be mentioned is that, even though the proposal was called for extension of time, it was not possible for the Government to extend the said term of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 society because section 73-G(2) permits the Government to extend the term of the Board of Directors of any sugar factory and/or any specified society to the extent of one year only. And said power was already exercised by the Government when the extension was granted on 11-12-1997. However, the inference that follows is that as a result of passing of the impugned order, the said proposal for extension of time is deemed to have been rejected by the Government probably having realised incapacity with the Government to grant such extension in accordance with law. 4. However, the inference that follows is that as a result of passing of the impugned order, the said proposal for extension of time is deemed to have been rejected by the Government probably having realised incapacity with the Government to grant such extension in accordance with law. 4. It is pertinent to note that the members of the Board of Directors the petitioner No. 2 were aware that their term of office is to come to an end on 11-12-1997, and therefore, anticipating that probably the extension may not be possible for whatever reasons best known to them, they approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5388 of 1996 seeking directions from this Court that respondent officers of the State be directed to hold the election of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 Sugar factory prior to the cessation of the term of the Board of Directors in office. Thus it was desired by them that on or before 11-12-1997 the elections should be completed and duly constituted body should enter the office of the petitioner No. 2, moment the term of the office of the Board of Directors is over, in view of such a request being made this Court had already issued directions to the Collector to consider holding of the election of the petitioner No. 2 sugar factory as per the mandage of the statute and in time. It is evident that as the facts then existed the mandate was to complete the election on or before 12-12-1997 and in accordance with law. It is revealed from the affidavit filed by Dr. Rameshchandra Sagar who was the then Collector of Parbhani District that he started steps towards the election and for the said purpose the notice dated 1-10-1996 was given to the District Deputy Registrar by the Collector requesting him to submit the list of voters of the petitioner No. 2 society for proceeding with and conducting the election of the said Karkhana. Thereafter the reminders were issued to the District Registrar, Parbhani, on 4-11-1992 and 21-12-1996 for supply of the voters list. Thereafter the reminders were issued to the District Registrar, Parbhani, on 4-11-1992 and 21-12-1996 for supply of the voters list. It is revealed that the voters list was submitted by the District Deputy Deputy Registrar on 13-6-1997 and the provisional voters list was published on 28-7-1997 which came to be finalised on 17-10-1997 and thus the voters list was finalised after lapse of the period of more than six months from the date of directions issued by this Court. When the Board of Directors approached this Court, to hold the elections expeditiously, we are unable to understand as to why in spite of demand being made by the Collector, for submission of the voters list, it was not submitted till 30-6-1997. No explanation to that effect is forthcoming. 5. It is further pertinent to note that the Collector, Parbhani by letter dated 1-7-1997 directed the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 society to deposit an amount as provided under section 144-D of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for conducting the elections. However, we are surprised to note from the affidavit of Dr. Rameshchandra Sagar, who was the then Collector of Parbhani District, that in spite of the reminders being sent on 1-7-1997, 30-7-1997, 8-8-1997, 16-8-1997, 5-8-1997, 16-10-1997 and 20-10-1997, the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 sugar factory failed to deposit the amount. These letters show that the petitioners were asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the expenses for holding the elections, however, it is noticed that only cheque of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by the petitioners on 17-10-1997 which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners was a token amount. In fact, in order to complete the elections of a specified society, the petitioners were under obligation to provide the voters list which is required to be prepared on the basis of the members register maintained by the concerned society so that the Collector can publish it as a provisional voters list. The obligation on the Board of Directors of society is to deposit the amount with the Collector so as to proceed with the election and complete the same as directed by this Court. The obligation on the Board of Directors of society is to deposit the amount with the Collector so as to proceed with the election and complete the same as directed by this Court. But what we find is that even though the members of the Board of Directors approached this Court, for the purposes of directions to hold the elections and for completing the same within time, they have not co-operated with the Collector and other Officers of the Co-operation Department by submitting the voters list in time and by depositing the amount as demanded by the concerned officers. It cannot be said that by mere submission of the cheque of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- the concerned Board of Directors has discharged their duties to proceed with the election of the petitioner No. 2 society. What further pains to us that by merely tendering token payment of Rs. 10,000/- such a statutory obligation on the Board of Directors cannot be said to be discharged. Steps which are required to be taken in accordance with the law and discharge of the statutory duties which have been positively placed on the Board of Directors were not taken and evasive attempts and mere show that the petitioners are ready to go on with the election was being made. Thus what we find is that the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 society has utterly failed to discharge their statutory duty so as to proceed with the election of the petitioner No. 1 society. What we find that in fact when the Collector realised that the voters list is not being submitted as desired by the Collector, it was obligatory on the part of the Collector to proceed against the society under Rule 4(iii) of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 1971 which states that if any society fails to submit the copies of the provisional voters list, 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. What we find is that the Collector even though has issued the letters to the District Deputy Registrar could have invoked the powers under said sub-rule (iii) of Rule 4 of 1971 Rules for the purposes of getting the provisional voters list. However, the Collector has also failed to exercise those powers. We have invited to this aspect because moment the Collector invokes the powers under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 4 of 1971 Rules, it becomes abundantly clear that the society or Board of Directors have failed to proceed with the election, and therefore, coercive method are required to be taken against the society by preparing the voters list by the Collector himself and recovering the amount incurred therefor as arrears of land revenue. This has further implication that moment the action under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 4 is taken by the Collector, for Registrar of the Co-operative Society is supposed to invoke the powers under section 73-H or 77-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which permits the Registrar to supersede the body of the Board of Directors of the concerned society. In the present matter even though the facts show that the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 society has not co-operated to proceed with the election demonstrated earlier, the Collector and the Registrar both have failed to take action in accordance with the provisions of the law and the statute. What is more painful is that even though the extended term of the office of the Board of Directors was over on 10-12-1998, the said body was allowed to continue in the office till passing of the impugned order. In fact, there is no statutory provision which permits the said body to remain in the office after the expiry of extended period under section 73-G(2) of said Act and we are unable to know as to what were the reasons for not taking immediate steps for supersession of the body. Surprisingly when it is abundantly clear from section 73-G(2) that the Government cannot extend the period of the term by one year still the proposal of extension has been asked by the Government from the society on 20-1-1999 and further the society has submitted the same proposal. Definitely, blame goes to the Government Officers who have called the proposal from the petitioners. Definitely, blame goes to the Government Officers who have called the proposal from the petitioners. What we ultimately find is that wisdom appears to have dawned on the officers while passing the impugned orders superseding the Board of Directors under section 77-A of the Act. Under the above referred circumstances, we find that the order which has been passed under section 77-A of the Act, is justified and deserve no interference from this Court. 6. As we find that the elections of the petitioner No. 2 society are over due and even though the voters list was finalised on 7-10-1997, the elections were not proceeded. Presently, we are not inclined to go into the reasons and lapses for not holding the elections since then. Mr. E.P. Sawant, learned Government Pleader has submitted the election programme to this Court which is to commence from 28-12-1999 from the stage of nomination. As per the said programme the results of the election will be declared on 6-2-2000. As the election programme under Rule 16 of 1971 Rules is submitted we direct the Collector to proceed with the said election programme meticulously and complete the election of the petitioner No. 2 society according to the said programme. 7. Lastly, we will have to make a reference to the election expenditure. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record, the correspondence which shows that initially an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was demanded and recently on 16-11-1999 the Collector demanded Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thereafter on 29-11-1999 the Collector, demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and the last demand letter dated 7-12-1999 shows that amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been asked to be deposited. This shows that the demands are arbitrary and without any basis. No doubt, the Collector is supposed to ask for expenditure of election, but that does not mean that amounts like as revealed from the correspondence placed on records, should be asked by the Collector., Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice letter dated 11-8-1999 issued by the Commissioner of Sugar. No doubt, the Collector is supposed to ask for expenditure of election, but that does not mean that amounts like as revealed from the correspondence placed on records, should be asked by the Collector., Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice letter dated 11-8-1999 issued by the Commissioner of Sugar. We have realised after going through the said letter that the State Government has taken cognizance of such demands made by the Collector from different sugar factories and when it is realised that the demands are baseless, the State Government has ultimately decided that the sugar factories which are having membership less than 10,000/- shall pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as an expenditure to the Collector and the sugar factories who have membership more than 10,000/- shall pay Rs. 2,00,000/-. In spite of the said letter being issued by the Commissioner of Sugar and the resolution being passed by the State Government how and under what powers the Collectors are making arbitrary demands is unknown to us. In the present matter the membership of the petitioner No. 2 sugar factory is 8000 as reported to this Court by Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioners and therefore, the expenditure which is required to be deposited is Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purposes of holding the election. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that as on today the petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 8-12-1999 and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was already deposited on 3-2-1999 with the Collector, Parbhani as earlier cheque issued on 17-10-1997 for Rs. 10,000/- was not encashed by the Collector, as per the letter dated 29-12-1998. However, even though the said letter shows that due to the Parliamentary elections in the year 1998, the elections of the petitioner No. 2 were not conducted and the cheque could not be presented for encashment we find that the said reason is not correct. On 17-10-1997 when the cheque was given there were no Parliamentary elections and it was not difficult for the Collector to encash the said cheque. However, we take only note of the said letter for the purpose that the said cheque was not encashed and ultimately that amount was deposited in the month of February, 1999. On 17-10-1997 when the cheque was given there were no Parliamentary elections and it was not difficult for the Collector to encash the said cheque. However, we take only note of the said letter for the purpose that the said cheque was not encashed and ultimately that amount was deposited in the month of February, 1999. As the amount as desired by the Government has been deposited, the Collector cannot now make grudge that he has not received the sufficient amount for holding the elections. The Elections Officer, who is present in the Court has assured this Court that he will proceed with the election without any delay. 8. Resultantly the petition is partly allowed as follows : (a) So far as the prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the order dated 19-8-1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 is concerned, the said prayer is hereby rejected in limine. The Administrator appointed under impugned order shall take charge of the petitioner No. 2 with immediate effect. (b) So far as the election of the respondent No. 2 society, is concerned, it is hereby directed to the Collector, that he shall complete the election as per the election programme produced on record which is to commence from 28th December, 1999 and which is to conclude by declaration of the election results on 6-2-2000. With the above directions, Writ petition stands disposed of. Rule accordingly. Petition partly allowed. -----