Judgment Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner challenges an order dated 1/1/2009 passed by Collector, Osmanabad rejecting objection petition filed by him to the provisional list of voters published for holding elections for the first time to the Board of Directors of Shivshakti sugar factory. 4. The learned counsel Shri.N.P.Patil (Jamalpurkar) appearing for petitioner submitted that objections raised are practically upheld by the Collector but the objection petition came to be rejected on the ground that the Collector’s powers are very limited under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act of 1960") and the rules made thereunder. According to petitioner, the respondent No.4 Keshav s/o Rajaram Patil was enrolled as member on 14/04/2007 and the cut off date was fixed by the Collector as 30/06/2007. In view of the provisions of rule 4 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules 1971 (for short "the Rules of 1971"), the respondent No.4 could not be a valid voter. The respondent No.4 did not complete minimum period of two years as member from the date of his enrollment. The counsel for petitioner places reliance on following reported judgments : 1. Manda Jaganath v. K.S.Rathnam [ (2004) 7 SCC 492 ]. 2. Vishawanath v.State of Maharashtra [1998 MCR 526]. 3. D.V.S.S.Maryadit vs. Distt.Collector [2006(5) Mh.L.J.325]. 4. Sandip Vasantrao vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2005(2) Mh.L.J. 996 ]. 5. Vasantrao vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 313 ]. 6. Baburao Kalu Koli v. State of Maharashtra [2007(6) Bom.C.R.6]. 7. Kawadu Undruji Kundawar Vs. Additional Collector [2007(4) ALL MR 159]. 8. Dalsing s/o Shamsing vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2006(3) Mh.L.J. 592 ]. 9. An order dated 12th September, 2008 inWrit Petition No.5381 of 2008. 5. The learned counsel Shri.Sapkal appearing for respondents No.4 places reliance on following reported judgments: 1. Shri.Sant Sadguru v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 2001 SC 3982 ]. 2. Vasantrao vs. State of Maharashtra [2003(1) Mh.L.J.313]. 3. Geeta Shirish Chaudhari vs. State of Maharashtra [2006(6) Bom.C.R.303]. It is submitted by the counsel that this is a first election held after registration of the society and constitution of a nominated board. According to counsel, the society was registered on 28/06/2001, the first committee under section 73(1A)(b) of the Act was appointed on 29/2/2003 for a period of three years. It is submitted by the counsel that this is a first election held after registration of the society and constitution of a nominated board. According to counsel, the society was registered on 28/06/2001, the first committee under section 73(1A)(b) of the Act was appointed on 29/2/2003 for a period of three years. The petitioner was appointed as a Chairman of the said nominated board on 21/2/2003. The petitioner ceased to be Chairman in August, 2005. The State extended the term of the nominated board for one year at one time and for another year on next occasion. The term of the nominated board expired on 28/1/2007. According to counsel, in view of the powers conferred under the provisions of rule 4 of the Rules of 1971, the Collector had refixed the cut off date as 30/6/2007. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on a reported judgment in Bhaskar Vs. State Of Maharashtra [2008 (Supp.) BCR 771]. It was submitted that in the matter of elections being held for the first time after the registration of the society, liberal approach had to be adopted so that many members could participate in the election process. 6. The learned counsel Shri.Dhorde appearing for respondents No.4 submitted that in view of the fact that elections for the first time were being held to constitute a Board of Directors of the sugar factory, in the facts of the case, rule 4 of the Rules of 1971 could not be adhered to in its letter and spirit. It was practically not possible in view of the scheme of the Act and the Rules to declare respondent No.4 to be an invalid voter. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the judgments cited before me by the respective counsel. 8. It is not disputed that the present elections are going to be held for the first time to constitute a Board of Directors of the sugar factory. The society was registered in the year 2001. The record indicates that the cut off date was refixed by the Collector as 30/6/2007. 9. The learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that in the facts of the case, the Collector ceases to have jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of respondent No.4 being a voter for non-compliance of rule 4 of the Rules of 1971. 10. The record indicates that the cut off date was refixed by the Collector as 30/6/2007. 9. The learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that in the facts of the case, the Collector ceases to have jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of respondent No.4 being a voter for non-compliance of rule 4 of the Rules of 1971. 10. Some of the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971, which are relevant for the purpose are reproduced herein below. Section 27 3(A) of the Act reads thus : "27. 3(A) An individual member of a society shall not be eligible for voting in the affairs of that society for a period of two years from the date of his enrollment as a member of such society." Rule 4 (1) of the Rules of 1971 reads thus : " 4(1) A provisional list of voters shall be prepared by every society for the year in which general election is due to be held. The persons who have completed minimum period of two years as members from the date of their enrollment before the 30th June of the year immediately preceding the year in which such election is due shall be included in the provisional list. If different constituencies are provided in the bye-laws, the names of voters shall be arranged constituencywise as laid down in the bye-laws : Provided that, if in any case, the preparation of the provisional list of voters falls due after the expiry of a period of six months from the 30th June, the Collector may, in consultation with the Registrar in respect of the societies of the categories mentioned in clause (i), (v), (vi) and (vii) of sub-section (1) of Section 73G, and in consultation with the District Deputy Registrar in respect of the societies of the other categories mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 73G, by order, change the date of the 30th June and subsequent dates and fix revised dates for the purposes of these rules. Rule 6 sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of the Rules of 1971 read thus: "6. Claims and objections to provisional list of voters. . Rule 6 sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of the Rules of 1971 read thus: "6. Claims and objections to provisional list of voters. . (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4) any person who is a member of the society as on the 30th day of June of the year immediately preceding the year in which such election is due or on such subsequent date as may be fixed by the Collector under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 and whose name is not included in the final list of voters prepared by the Collector under sub-rule (4) and who is desirous of being registered as a voter may apply in writing to the Collector in Form I-A within a period of fifteen days from the date of display of the final list of voters under Rule 7. . (6) Every such application received by the Collector shall be forwarded to him within three days of the date of receipt by him to the District Deputy Registrar for enquiry. The District Deputy Registrar shall cause an enquiry to be made into the application and submit his report to the Collector along with his recommendations within seven days from the date of receipt of the application by him from the Collector. . (7) The Collector shall after considering the application and the report of the District Deputy Registrar give his decision in writing to the persons concerned, before the first date fixed for making nominations. If the Collector decides that the name of the applicant should be registered as a voter, he shall accordingly modify the list finalised by him earlier under sub-rule (4) and the list so modified shall then be treated as the final list of voters." . 11. Admittedly, the elections are being held to constitute a Board of Directors to a specified co-operative society. A condition of eligibility for voting in the affairs of the society has been prescribed in case of an individual member under the provisions of section 27(3A) of the Act. 11. Admittedly, the elections are being held to constitute a Board of Directors to a specified co-operative society. A condition of eligibility for voting in the affairs of the society has been prescribed in case of an individual member under the provisions of section 27(3A) of the Act. An individual member of a society would not be eligible for voting in the affairs of the society for a period of two years from the date of his .minimum period of two years as members from the date of their enrollment before 30th June of the year immediately preceding the year in which such election is due shall be included in the provisional list. The Collector in a given case may change the date of 30th June and fix revised dates for the purposes of these rules. In the present elections, the Collector had rescheduled cut-off date as 30th June, 2007. . 12. From the documents placed on record of this Court and from the order passed by the Collector itself, it is clear that the respondent No.4 was enrolled as a member of the society on 14/07/2007. Therefore, considering the cut-off date prescribed for preparation of voters list to be 30th June, 2007, the respondent No.4 does not satisfy the condition of being member of society for a period .of two years prior to the rescheduled/refixed cut-off date i.e. 30th June, 2007. 13. The Collector considered the issue raised before him and after perusing relevant record reached conclusion that the respondent No.4 was not qualified to be a voter. The Collector further observed that the primary register, which was submitted by the society before the Collector, reflected name of respondent No.4 as member of the society, which, according to Collector, was prima facie incorrect. 14. The Collector rejected the objection-petition of the petitioner on the ground that he does not have power and jurisdiction to delete the name of a person from the voters list. The learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the Collector was right in his approach as in view of provisions of rule 6 of the Rules of 1971, the Collector is supposed to inquire into the claim or objection in respect of omission or error regarding name or address or other particulars of the person concerned. A detail inquiry by scanning record is not envisaged neither permitted by law. A detail inquiry by scanning record is not envisaged neither permitted by law. Such issues could have been referred to by the Collector to the Registrar for determining as to whether the respondent No.4 was a valid member. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 further submitted that as the election process is set in motion, interference at this stage is not warranted. 15. Some of the cases cited (supra) by learned counsel Shri.Sapkal, appearing for respondent No.4 enrollment as a member of the society. The provisions of rule 4 of the Rules of 1971 stipulates that the persons who have completed are delivered prior to the amendment brought to the provisions of section 27(3A) with effect from 23/08/2000. The provisions of rule 4 of the Rules of 1971 were also substituted by an amendment brought in the year 2002. 16. In a reported judgment delivered in the case of Dalsing s/o shamsing vs. state of Maharashta 2006(3) Mh.L.J.592], the Division Bench of this Court observed thus : "6. It is the contention of learned advocate Shri.V.B.Patil that petitioner being contesting candidate, Election Petition is alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Even for supporting this argument, he has placed reliance upon clause as contained in head notes of the decision in the case of Ashok Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). We have already pointed out factual distinction between the reported judgment and the matter before us. Said clause (d) itself indicates that in the reported matter, polling had already taken place whereas in the matter at hands, Society is yet to enter the polling only on 26/3/2006. If at all respondent No.5 is not eligible to contest the elections to the Managing Committee of the Society, and if we can prevent him from so contesting without disturbing the election programme, we feel that the same will serve the interest of justice. Election petition cannot be termed as equally efficacious remedy in the present fact situation. It will be absurd and ridiculous to the democratic process of election that a person not eligible to contest is allowed to contest any election and then efforts are started to dislodge him. We are, therefore, not inclined to feel obstructed by the availability of alternate remedy. In fact, we are of the considered opinion that the alternate remedy suggested by learned advocate Shri.V.B.Patil is certainly not equally efficacious remedy in the present matter. We are, therefore, not inclined to feel obstructed by the availability of alternate remedy. In fact, we are of the considered opinion that the alternate remedy suggested by learned advocate Shri.V.B.Patil is certainly not equally efficacious remedy in the present matter. " 17. Admittedly, in the present case, the election programme is not declared so far. The error pointed out by the petitioner in enlisting the name of respondent No.4 in the voters list is apparent and against express provisions of law. The respondent No.4 is not qualified to be a voter in view of the provisions cited above. He does not satisfy the condition of eligibility for becoming a voter. His name may appear and continue in the register of members of the society maintained by the society, but the same would not satisfy the mandatory condition for him to become a valid voter. 18. In the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that without disturbing the election programme if such apparent manifest breach of the mandatory provisions of law are pointed out, then it would be necessary and proper to intervene at the proper stage so that purity and fairness of the elections is fully maintained. In such matters plea of alternate remedy would not be efficacious and sufficient one. It is necessary to take care that under the garb of plea of alternate remedy the mandatory provisions of law prescribed for holding elections are not flouted with impunity. Time has come to curb such tendencies at an appropriate stage. In the facts of the case, I find that the respondent No.4 was not entitled to be a valid voter. His name deserves to be deleted from the voters list. 19. The plea advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is that this being the first election after the term of nominated board expired, liberal approach is required to be adopted to involve as many members as possible to participate in the elections. In the facts of the case applying this principle would be in total breach of the provisions of section 27(3A) of the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules of 1971. 20. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the writ Court shall intervene by passing appropriate orders. The petition deserves to be allowed. 21. 20. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the writ Court shall intervene by passing appropriate orders. The petition deserves to be allowed. 21. The impugned order dated 1/1/2009 passed by Collector, Osmanabad is quashed and set aside. The objection raised by the petitioner to the inclusion of name of respondent No.4 in the voters list prepared for holding elections to constitute Board of Directors of respondent No.3 Shivshakti Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana is upheld. The name of respondent No.4 Keshav s/o Rajaram Patil stands deleted from the voters list. 22. The Collector, Osmanabad is directed to take steps to delete the name of respondent No.4 from the voters list of respondent No.2 sugar factory. 23. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs. 24. After pronouncement of judgment, a prayer is made by counsel appearing for respondent No.3 for staying operation of this order. The prayer stands