ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. 2. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. 3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Madkholkar in support of petition, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Mr. V.A. Thakre for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned Advocate Mr. M.N. Thengre for the respondent no.4. 4. The petitioner herein is a member of Dighori Seva Sahakari Sanstha, Dighori, which Society, in turn, is a Society-Member of Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Chandrapur. 5. The dispute pertains to representation of Dighori Seva Sahakari Sanstha in the process of election of the Federal Society – Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Chandrapur. 6. According to petitioner, in response to a call by the Returning Officer, the provisional Voters' List was to be published on 24th November, 2006, and was to be finalized on 30th January, 2007. Name of the respondent No.4 was forwarded by the Society, which was objected by present petitioner. 7. The bone of contention of the objection raised by the present petitioner is that the meeting for nominating a person to be representative of the Society, which was convened by the Chairman and was scheduled on 18th October, 2006, was attended by only six members. The Chairman as well as Secretary of Society remained absent. The meeting was, therefore, held under chairmanship of the petitioner, and he was nominated as the representative. The copy of resolution was sent to the competent authority and petitioner's name was included in the voters' list. Thereafter, the Chairman and Secretary convened another meeting on 16th November, 2006, and resolved to nominate the respondent no.4. According to the petitioner, said resolution and meeting are illegal, and he prayed for restoring his name in voters' list. Thus, the inclusion of name of respondent no.4 was challenged before Collector. 8. As per the procedure, after the objection is received, it is required to be sent to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who has to hold an enquiry and submit a report. It is seen that the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, further called report from Assistant Registrar. After receiving the report from Asstt. Registrar, Co. operative Societies, the District Deputy Registrar has submitted his report. 9. The Collector did not himself conduct any enquiry and referred it to Additional Collector, Chandrapur. Thereupon impugned order dated 12th January, 2007 was passed by Additional Collector. Petitioner's objection has been rejected. 10. After receiving the report from Asstt. Registrar, Co. operative Societies, the District Deputy Registrar has submitted his report. 9. The Collector did not himself conduct any enquiry and referred it to Additional Collector, Chandrapur. Thereupon impugned order dated 12th January, 2007 was passed by Additional Collector. Petitioner's objection has been rejected. 10. The petitioner herein has taken a serious exception to this order on the following grounds :- [a] That, the reasons assigned in the impugned order are totally irrelevant and it reveals non-application of mind. [b] The Additional Collector is not competent to decide the case, since the delegation of power or transfer of case to the Additional Collector is not in keeping with the provisions relating to delegation of power contained in Section 158 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. [c] The report of Assistant Registrar, which in clear terms, ruled out the possibility of meeting dated 16th November, 2006, inter alia, on the ground that as Ramdas Bhogu Ramteke was not present in the meeting, it was a case where a fact-finding record was available before the Collector and unless the evidence, which was accepted by Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and District Deputy Registrar was found to be of no evidentiary value, or otherwise worthless, was bound to be accepted. 11. It is seen that initially the name of the petitioner was recorded as representative of the Society, however, in order to eliminate his name, in the resolution subject matter dated 16th November, 2006 was passed and the name of respondent no.3 was inducted. The petitioner, therefore, is contending that a meeting for passing the resolution, on the basis of which name of Kamlabai - respondent no.3 was forwarded, was, in fact, not held, and this plea is supported by the report of Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the District Deputy Registrar. Moreover, respondent no.3 has not challenged this report by filing any objection, supported by affidavit, or otherwise. 12. Now, the questions, which arise for determination of this Court considering the rival contentions, are as follows :- [1] Should the petition be entertained in view of alternate remedy available under Section 144T of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and whether this Court should interfere in the matter in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India? [2] Would it not be permissible to correct rectifiable mistake, without interfering in the schedule of process of election? [3] Whether the Court should interfere in the election process of preparation of Voters' List which has reached finality? 13. Learned Advocate Mr. Thengre placed reliance on following three reported Judgments :- [a] Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Someshwarnagar Vs. Shriniwas Patil, Collector, Pune & others [1992 Mh. L. J. 883]; [b] Subhash Anantrao Sawant Vs. Shri Adinath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Distt. Solapur [1992 Co-operative Tribunal Journal 706], and [c] Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami [Moingiri Maharaj] Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others [2002 (1) Mh. L. J. 659], to urge that this Court need not interfere. 14. Learned Advocate Mr. Madkholkar placed reliance on a reported Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Pundlik Vs. State of Maharashtra & others [ (2005) 7 SCC 181 ], in which Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere when High Court had taken corrective measures in the background that in Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami's case [supra], Hon'ble Supreme Court has disapproved interference in the process of election. 15. This Court finds that on the given facts of the case, which have come on record, five conclusions are irresistible, namely : [1] the Collector's order [Additional Collector] is non-speaking, [2] his order is based on reasons which are extraneous, and not recognized by law, [3] fact-finding report and recommendations were on record and no reasons as to why a different view is taken are not recorded, [4] even by implication, it is not held that District Deputy Registrar's report is erroneous, and [5] admittedly, when the Collector is appointed as a Returning Officer, the scheme of Section 158 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not contemplate, pre-suppose or permit delegation by the Collector. 16. This Court finds that in the case on hand, facts are so obvious that while the general rule that no interference in the process of election is to be done, is to be followed, this Court finds that there are no grounds as to why this Court would feel itself astute in correcting a mistake without interfering in the process of election and without upsetting the election schedule. It is a case where a palpable and notable error has been committed, and by joint reading of the Judgment in case of Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, and the case of Pundlik Vs. State of Maharashtra & others [cited supra], this Court should not interfere. 17. This Court finds that the rule of 'noninterference' is a rule of self-restraint, as laid down and reiterated in various binding precedents. The self-restraints would be observed, scrupulously save and except the cases where it would be necessary for the Court to act and give a rightful mould to the process of election being misdirected by taking disadvantage of the fact that Courts are keen on observing self-restraints of non-interference in the process of election. In fact, to support the rule of self-restraint by the Court, the executive authority should have acted to correct the Voters' List. In spite of enquiry by the Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and District Deputy Registrar, the Additional Collector has simply brushed aside said enquiry. In the background of such patent dereliction in quasi-judicial functions, it would be very difficult for this Court to persuade itself to simply watch such erroneous acts of the election machinery, and by connivance, permit such mistake being committed and repeated. 18. This Court is, therefore, of the view that this Court is satisfied that the order of the Collector was not just erroneous, or that passed by taking recourse to plurality of opinions available in the case, but the order is seen to be of such nature that no quasi judicial authority should act in the manner in which it has been done in the present case. 19. This Court is, therefore, constrained to hold that the order passed by the Collector is bad, as it suffers from the defects of : [a] non-application of mind, [b] basing it on considerations which are not available in law, and [c] failure to refer and refuse or discard by recording reasons as to why the report of subordinate authority was contrary. 20. While interference is an exception, and noninterference by self-restraint is the rule, in the aforesaid background, this Court is of the view that the plenary jurisdiction available under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be brought in aid in a case like one on hand. 21. 20. While interference is an exception, and noninterference by self-restraint is the rule, in the aforesaid background, this Court is of the view that the plenary jurisdiction available under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be brought in aid in a case like one on hand. 21. In the result, Rule is liable to be made absolute and is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause [A]. Parties shall bear their own costs.