JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Both the petitions are inter-linked and therefore, we have heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Rule. 3. Respective respondents waive service. Respondent Nos. 5 to 27 are the Managing Committee members of the respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000 and the said society is represented by Shri Dhorde. Respondent No. 21 in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000 is one of the petitioners in Writ Petition 4334 of 2000. The Writ Petition No. 4334 of 2000 has been filed on the basis of resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 4 society in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000 and, therefore, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000. 4. Amendment in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000 is allowed. 5. The Pravara Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Prakriya and Krushipurak Sanstha Ltd., Babhaleshwar, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar (the said society, for short) has been granted registration certificate on 15th of July, 1975 as a Co-operative Society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) and it is categorised as Agricultural Society-(b) Other Agricultural Societies within the meaning of Rule 10(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short, Rules of 1961). 6. The last election of the Managing Committee of the said society was held sometimes in September, 1994 and the five years term of the said elected committee commenced on 1st October, 1994. It was to expire on 30th September, 1999 and on 8th June, 1999 the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification postponing the elections of co-operative societies till the end of September, 1999. Prior to this date the said society had taken steps to hold fresh elections by declaring the election programme on 13th of May, 1999 and the election process was to commence from 17th June, 1999. In view of the notification dated 8th June, 1999 issued by the Government of Maharashtra some of the Managing Committee members of the said society approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3248 of 1999 challenging the vires of the provisions of section 73-IB of the Act and seeking directions to go on with the election programme, including temporary protection to the Managing Committee being retained in office. By order dated 6th July, 1999 this Court, while issuing notice before admission, granted liberty to the petitioners to move the State Government for seeking permission to proceed with the election programme, as already declared. By a further order dated 13th July, 1999 the petition was admitted and was directed to be finally heard alongwith Writ Petition No. 3356 of 1999. 7. The Managing Committee filed an application before the State Government on 12th August, 1999 for extension of their term till the elections for the new Managing Committee are held and because no orders were passed on the said representation by the State Government a fresh petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 4539 of 1999 came to be filed before this Court challenging the validity of section 73-G (2B), 73-H, 73-IB and 73-G(1) of the Act and further praying for protection to hold the office until the fresh elections are held. This petition was filed on 28th August, 1999 and by order dated 30th September, 1999 this Court directed the respondent State authorities not to appoint any Administrator or not to take over charge of the society and the present Managing Committee should be allowed to continue in office till 11th October, 1999. It appears that subsequently the Government of Maharashtra passed an order on 30th November, 1999 on the pending representation of the petitioners and extended the term of the Managing Committee for a period of six months i.e. till 31st of March, 2000. In the meanwhile, the interim order passed by this Court was continued and finally on 22nd November, 1999 the petition came to be disposed of as withdrawn. 8. On 15th September, 1999 yet another writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 4557 of 1999 came to be presented before this Court challenging the Government order dated 9th July, 1999 declaring the society as specified society within the meaning of section 73-G of the Act. There was no interim order passed in this petition and in view of the affidavit filed in reply by the Government, it appears that the petitioners did not desire to pursue with the petition and, therefore, it was disposed of as withdrawn by order dated 22nd November, 1999. There was no interim order passed in this petition and in view of the affidavit filed in reply by the Government, it appears that the petitioners did not desire to pursue with the petition and, therefore, it was disposed of as withdrawn by order dated 22nd November, 1999. It is also noted that the impugned Government Resolution dated 9th July, 1999 came to be withdrawn by the State Government on 18th November, 1999 and that was perhaps the reason that Writ Petition No. 4557 of 1999 came to be withdrawn. 9. Writ Petition No. 5670 of 1999 came to be filed by some of the persons from amongst the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000 contending therein that the society being a specified society the elections could not be proceeded with at the instance of the existing Managing Committee and the elections are required to be held by the Collector. By order dated 3rd December, 1999 this Court observed that the society was operating in four Talukas of Ahmednagar District viz. Sangamner, Shrirampur, Rahata and Rahuri and, therefore, prima facie the society was covered under the provisions of section 73-G. The Court also relied upon the notification dated 20th February, 1985 as well as 18th November, 1999 and directed not to proceed with the election programme as was announced and sought to be implemented by the existing Managing Committee. The said petition is still pending. In the meanwhile, the term of the existing Managing Committee came to be extended by another six months i.e. upto 30th September, 2000. 10. By another order dated 9th October, 2000 the Government has extended the present Managing Committ's term upto 30th November, 2000. The said petition is still pending. In the meanwhile, the term of the existing Managing Committee came to be extended by another six months i.e. upto 30th September, 2000. 10. By another order dated 9th October, 2000 the Government has extended the present Managing Committ's term upto 30th November, 2000. Writ Petition No. 4334 of 2000 has been presented before this Court on 28th September, 2000 for the following two substantive reliefs : "(A) Hold and declare that the petitioner No. 1 Society is not a specified society as per the Government Resolution dated 20-2-1985 and, therefore, the election of the petitioner No. 1 society cannot be held by the Collector, respondent No. 5 and quash and set aside the letter dated 24-4-2000 and 18-4-2000 and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No. 4 the Divisional Deputy Registrar to hold the election of the petitioner No. 1 society as a notified society and for that purpose issue necessary orders." By way of interim orders an injunction has been sought against the respondent State authorities restraining them from superseding the existing Managing Committee or from appointing an Administrator as well as holding fresh elections. On the other hand, Writ Petition No. 4335 of 2000 has been presented on 3rd October, 2000 and seeking direction against the State authorities to take appropriate action against the present Managing Committee of the society under the provisions of section 73-H, 73G(2B) and 77-A of the Act. By way of interim relief the petitioners have sought the directions against the State authorities to take over the administration of the society by appointing an Administrator. The following questions arise for our considerations: "(i) Whether the society is a notified society. (ii) Whether the society is a specified society within the meaning of section 73-G of the Act. (iii) Whether the order issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 9th of October, 2000 is legal. (iv) Whether fresh elections of the Managing Committee of the society are required to be held; and (v) Whether the existing Managing Committee has the right to continue in office after the expiry of six years tenure." 11. The Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Nasik Division, Nasik has filed an affidavit in reply in both the petitions. (iv) Whether fresh elections of the Managing Committee of the society are required to be held; and (v) Whether the existing Managing Committee has the right to continue in office after the expiry of six years tenure." 11. The Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Nasik Division, Nasik has filed an affidavit in reply in both the petitions. It has been stated therein that after the Government order dated 18th November, 1990, withdrawing the Government Resolution dated 9th July, 1999, was issued the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy) at Mumbai, vide his letter dated 14th June, 2000 approached the Government and the Government of Maharashtra issued an order on 7th July, 2000 stating that the society was not a specified society as its area of operation did not cover the whole of one geographical Taluka. It is also stated in the affidavit that the society is not a notified society and, therefore, we need not examine the Issue No. 1 on this admitted position that the society is not a notified society. 12. The Government Resolution dated 20th February, 1985 was obviously issued by the State of Maharashtra by invoking its powers under section 73-G(1)(VII) which empowers the State Government to declare any society or class of societies as a specified society by a general or special order published in the official gazette, regard being had to the financial position and share capital of such societies or class of societies. (Emphasis provided). 13. The statutory provision is clear and unambiguous. The Government can invoke the powers in respect of a society or class of societies under section 73-G(1) only on two counts viz. the share capital and the financial position of a society or class of societies. The consideration of other factors like the area of operation etc. do not come into play and, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Government Resolution dated 20th February, 1985 cannot be relied upon to hold that the society is a specified society within the meaning of section 73-G of the Act. This would not, however, preclude the Government from exercising its powers under the said section by taking into consideration the society's share capital or the financial position at any time in future to declare it a specified society. Nonetheless, we hold, as has been accepted by the State Government, that the society is not a specified society. 14. This would not, however, preclude the Government from exercising its powers under the said section by taking into consideration the society's share capital or the financial position at any time in future to declare it a specified society. Nonetheless, we hold, as has been accepted by the State Government, that the society is not a specified society. 14. The order dated 9th of October, 2000 has been issued by the State of Maharashtra stating therein that by invoking its powers under section 157 the society has been exempted from the operation of section 73G(2) of the Act and the term of the existing Managing Committee has been extended upto 30th November, 2000. This action of the Government is contrary to its stand taken in the affidavit in reply viz. the society is not a specified society. The provisions of section 73-G of the Act would not come into play once it is accepted that the society is not specified society and, therefore, there was no question of the Government exercising its powers under section 157 of the Act while issuing the impugned order dated 9th October, 2000. The Government has the powers to extend the term of the Managing Committee of a specified co-operative society for a maximum period of one year under section 73-G of the Act and such powers cannot be invoked in the case of societies which are not specified societies. The learned Government Pleader tried to suggest that the said order is perhaps based on the view expressed by this Court in its order dated 3rd December, 1999 in Writ Petition No. 5670 of 1999. This submission is devoid of merits as the view expressed in the said order was clearly a prima facie view and not a final one. The order dated 9th October, 2000 has no support in law. 15. This submission is devoid of merits as the view expressed in the said order was clearly a prima facie view and not a final one. The order dated 9th October, 2000 has no support in law. 15. Shri Dhorde, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4334 of 2000 has referred to the provisions of section 73-H of the Act which are applicable to every society and he has emphasised on the provisions of sub-section (2) thereto which reads as under : "Where there is a wilful failure on the part of the committee to hold the election to the committee before the expiration of its term, the committee shall cease to function on the expiration of its term and the members thereof shall cease to hold office and the Registrar may himself take over the management of the society or appoint an Administrator who shall not be from amongst the members of the committee, the term of which has so expired and the Registrar or Administrator shall hold the election within a period of six months and the committee shall be constituted before the expiration of that period." 16. Shri Dhorde, learned Counsel submitted that the society had taken timely and adequate steps to hold the elections by publishing the election programme way back in May, 1999 and but for the order issued by the Government of Maharashtra postponing the elections and, thereafter, stay order by the District Deputy Registrar, the elections could not be held. He also invited our attention to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5670 of 1999 on 3rd December, 1999 in this regard emphasizing that the Managing Committee was refrained from holding elections and, therefore, it cannot be blamed. In short, there was no wilful failure on the part of the committee to hold the elections on expiry of its original term or the extended term as the case may be. He, therefore, justified his contentions that this Court should allow the present committee to continue and in the meanwhile the committee should also be allowed to hold the elections by appointing an election officer and it would not be for the Collector or any other Government authority to hold the elections. 17. He, therefore, justified his contentions that this Court should allow the present committee to continue and in the meanwhile the committee should also be allowed to hold the elections by appointing an election officer and it would not be for the Collector or any other Government authority to hold the elections. 17. In Writ Petition No. 3432 of 2000 we have taken a view that it is for the Registrar to examine the parameters of sub-section (2) of section 73H of the Act to come to the conclusion whether there is a wilful failure on the part of the existing committee in holding the elections and it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine that issue. The statutory provision empowers the Registrar to do this exercise and, therefore, the view taken by us in the said petition is squarely applicable in the instant case as well. It would be for the Registrar to examine the circumstances and pass an appropriate order, whether the existing Managing Committee should be allowed to continue or the reins of the society are required to be handed over to an Administrator. 18. When we have recorded a finding that the society is not a specified society, it follows that the elections for the new Managing Committee are required to be held by the society by appointing a Returning Officer and the Collector or the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies will not come in the picture to initiate the election process and complete the same. Our attention has been invited to the interlocutory order we passed in Writ Petition No. 5670 of 1999 and ours was a prima facie as noted hereinabove view and it cannot be treated as a final adjudication of the issues raised by the parties. The elections are, therefore, required to be set in motion at the earliest possible by the society. 19. In the circumstances, we direct as under : (i) The order dated 9th of October, 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. The elections are, therefore, required to be set in motion at the earliest possible by the society. 19. In the circumstances, we direct as under : (i) The order dated 9th of October, 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) We direct the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Nasik Division at Nasik, to hold an inquiry as required under section 73-H(2) of the Act and pass an appropriate order as to whether the existing Managing Committee should be allowed to continue till the elections are held and new Managing Committee takes office or an Administrator is required to be appointed to take over the management of the society. This should be done after hearing all the parties concerned and in any case within a period of three weeks from today. We make it clear that the hearing, if required before the said authority, shall go on day to day basis and the final order shall be passed within the specified period. The continuation/suppersession of the present committee shall be subject to the order to be passed by the Divisional Deputy Registrar and the committee shall continue in office till such order is passed. (iii) We direct the society to publish the election programme forthwith and in any case within one week from today to hold the elections of the new Managing Committee by appointing Returning Officer. We make it clear that the further process of election will be undertaken by the Committee/Administrator, as the case may be, in terms of the order to be passed by the Divisional Deputy Registrar (Dairy), Nasik Division, Nasik. Rule made absolute in terms of the above orders. Costs in cause. Rule made absolute. -----