JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---Heard all the learned Counsel, Shri Salunke for the petitioner, Shri Savant, Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Bhavathankar for respondent No. 8, who is the only contesting respondent. 2.Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service. 3.The petitioner seeks to challenge the right of the 8th respondent Smt. Nirmala Patil to contest the election to the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent-specified society. 4.The 8th respondent is contesting the said election from the reserved constituency under section 73-BBB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 dealing with "reservation of seats on committees of societies for women members and elections thereto". 5.This matter was initially heard on 11th January, 2000 and having regard to the urgency, (namely the fact that voting is to take place on 25th January, 2000) notice before admission was issued to respondent No. 5 society and the contesting respondent No. 8, returnable on 18th January, 2000. However, the matter did not reach on 18th January, 2000 or thereafter, and is being taken up today. 6.Mr. B.R. Kadam, Secretary of respondent No. 5 society is present in person. 7.The short point which is required to be considered is, whether the 8th respondent, who is admittedly not a member of 5th respondent specified society, or even a member of any member society of the 5th respondent, can claim to represent the reserved constituency on the Managing Committee of the said specified society-respondent No. 5. 8.Under the impugned order dated 29th December, 1999 the petitioner's objection to the eligibility of the 8th respondent has been rejected on the ground that by virtue of Rule 56-M read with section 73-B(3) the 8th respondent would be eligible to contest. 9.A perusal of Rule 56-M of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Rules) would show that the said rule appears in Chapter VA namely, "elections to notified societies". Admittedly, the 5th respondent is a specified society within the meaning of section 73-G of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is not a notified society. Election to the Managing Committee of a specified society is admittedly governed by the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Rules). Admittedly, the 5th respondent is a specified society within the meaning of section 73-G of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is not a notified society. Election to the Managing Committee of a specified society is admittedly governed by the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Rules). There is thus no controversy before us that Rule 56-M would not be applicable since it applies to the election to the Managing Committee of a notified societies and the 5th respondent is not a notified society governed by the said 1961 Rules. 10.Mr. Bhavathankar invited our attention to the provisions of Rule 18 of the 1971 Rules. Reliance was placed on sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the 1971 Rules, which reads, as under : "18. Nomination of candidates:---(1) Any person may be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat, if he is qualified to be chosen to fill that seat under the provisions of the Act, rules and bye-laws and his name is entered in the list of voters; Provided that, in the case of joint or associate members, only the member whose name stands first in the share certificate shall be eligible to be nominated as a candidate for the election;" A bare reading of the said Rule 18(1) makes it clear that in order to be eligible to contest the election for the Managing Committee of a specified society, a person has to be a member of the said society. Assuming that a person is a member or a joint member or an associate member, all that is dispensed with is the requirement that the name of that particular person, who is so contesting, should appear in the voters' list. The basic eligibility that he should be a member is not dispensed with. If one is a member, but if his name does not appear in the voters list, that may be dispensed with in certain cases. 11.The second reason given by the Returning Officer is that under section 73-B(3), the 8th respondent would be eligible. In the first place, the constituency in question in the present petition is under section 73-BBB viz. reserved seat for woman members. Section 73-B talks of reservation of seats for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and for members of the weaker section on the Managing Committee. In the first place, the constituency in question in the present petition is under section 73-BBB viz. reserved seat for woman members. Section 73-B talks of reservation of seats for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and for members of the weaker section on the Managing Committee. 12.The provisions of section 73-BBB make it clear that the reservation is for women members of the society. It could be in favour of woman member of the Committee of a member society who are elected, co-opted or appointed. The 8th respondent is, admittedly not a woman member of the 5th respondent society nor is she a woman member on the Committee of a member society of the 5th respondent society. 13.Even if we peruse the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 73-BBB, the 8th respondent would not be eligible to contest. It is relevant to note, in this regard, that sub-section (4) of section 73-BBB deals with a situation where no woman member or, as the case may be women members are elected to the reserved seats. Certain procedure is to be followed, which contingency does not arise in this case since we are told by all the learned Counsel appearing before us that having regard to the number of the members of the Committee of the 5th respondent society, there have to be two seats for woman members reserved on the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent society. This is by virtue of the provisions of section 73-BBB(1)(b). There are already three contesting candidates in the fray, excluding the 8th respondent. 14.Under the circumstances mentioned above, both the reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 29th December, 1999 are wholly unsustainable. Neither Rule 56-M, which is applicable to a notified society, is applicable here in case of a specified society nor is section 73-B(3) attracted. 15.It is admitted before us that the 8th respondent Smt. Nirmala Patil is neither a member of the 5th respondent specified society nor is she a member of any society which, in turn, is a member of the 5th respondent specified society. In the first place, the certificate to this effect is on record at page 24. Secondly, Mr. Kadam, the Secretary of the 5th respondent society, who is present in the Court, confirms this position. 16.In this view of the matter, Rule is made absolute. In the first place, the certificate to this effect is on record at page 24. Secondly, Mr. Kadam, the Secretary of the 5th respondent society, who is present in the Court, confirms this position. 16.In this view of the matter, Rule is made absolute. The two orders dated 29th December, 1999, passed by respondent No. 4, accepting the two nominations of the 8th respondent are hereby quashed and set aside. Her nomination papers stand rejected. No orders as to costs. Rule made absolute.