JUDGMENT This Court has issued notice for final disposal and as elections are scheduled on 4th December, 2010, the matter is heard finally by making Rule returnable forthwith. 2. It is not in dispute that name of petitioner society was included at Sr. No.39 in provisional voters list in constituency of Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and Multi-Purpose Co-operative Societies as per byelaw of 30(i) (a) governing the election of respondent 2 Specified Co-operative Society and District Central Co-operative Bank. Because of objections raised by respondent no.3, said name has been shifted to constituency meant for Marketing Co-operative Societies prescribed in by law 30 (i)(b). 3. Adv. Chandurkar argues that respondent 3 has no locus to raise such objections as per the scheme in Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committees Rules, 1971 i.e. 1971 Rules hereafter. He has relied upon provisions of Rule 6 read with Rule 5, Sub-Rules (1) and (2) also explained scheme as contained in the above Rules for said purpose. According to him, only the Society in relation to whom said error or mistake has occurred is entitled to raise such objections & to get the error corrected. As matter pel1ains to election, the rights of parties are as per legal provisions and the word "concerned society" appearing in Rule 6(1) must receive strict interpretation. Concerned must mean forming subject matter of error & necessitating correction. 4. Advocate Ghare who appears for respondent no.2-Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Limited has supported the arguments of Advocate Chandurkar. 5. Advocate Loney, as also learned AGP supported the impugned order. According to both of them, Rule 5 contemplates reference to two categories of voters & lists as provisional list. Rule 5(1) of 1971 Rules envisages list of individual members or share holders of respondent 2 while in the second list under Rule 5(2), the member societies or the delegate of such member Co-operative Societies are included. According to learned counsel provisions of Rule 6 (1) permit "any member of the society concerned who is a voter or any delegate authorised to vote on behalf of such society" to raise objection. The words, "society concerned" refer to respondent no.2 Specified Co-operative Society while the words, "such society" refer to societies referred to in Rule 5(2). Advocate Loney has pointed out electoral roll is sacrosanct for the purpose of election and all interested therefore must be given opportunity to raise objection. The words, "society concerned" refer to respondent no.2 Specified Co-operative Society while the words, "such society" refer to societies referred to in Rule 5(2). Advocate Loney has pointed out electoral roll is sacrosanct for the purpose of election and all interested therefore must be given opportunity to raise objection. He is placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of The Chief Commissioner of Ajmer and another Vs. Radhey Shyam Dani, AIR 1957 SC 304 for said purpose. 6. Ron, Apex Court considers in The Chief Commissioner of Ajmer and another Vs. Radhey Shyam Dani (supra), the provisions of Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulation and it is settled law that right to participate in election or participate therein is regulated by law and it is not a common law right. Respondent no.3 has not demonstrated as to how provisions of Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulation governing the election considered by the Hon 'ble Apex Court are parimateria with provisions of 1971 Rule or Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Said judgment and observations therein are therefore are of no assistance in the present matter. 7. Perusal of Rule 6, Sub-Rule (1) of 1971 Rules reveals that defects or errors contemplated therein can be brought to the notice of Collector by any member of "society concerned" who is voter or then by any delegate authorised to vote on behalf of "such society". If the arguments of Advocate Loney and learned AGP are to be accepted in this respect, a distinction is required to be made between "society concerned' and "such society" such distinction is not warranted by language of Rule 6, Sub-Rule (1). The effort to corelate words "society concerned" with Rule 5, sub-Rule (1) or (2) and words "such society" with Rule 5, Sub-Rule (2) are therefore not sustainable. Those words also do not refer to respondent 2 society as it is its own election & it is not voter therein. I find that Rule 6 need not be read in the light of provisions of Rule 5 at all. 8. The defects or omissions or errors in provisional voters list contemplated in sub-rule (1) can be gathered from details which are required to be included in it and for that purpose only provisions of Rule 5 can be looked into. However, entitlement of Objector to raise such objection is stipulated only in sub-Rule (1) itself. 8. The defects or omissions or errors in provisional voters list contemplated in sub-rule (1) can be gathered from details which are required to be included in it and for that purpose only provisions of Rule 5 can be looked into. However, entitlement of Objector to raise such objection is stipulated only in sub-Rule (1) itself. The earlier words, "any member of society" concerned who is voter refer to a member of society and that society is also required to be voter of respondent 2. Respondent no.2 Specified Co-operative Society cannot also be its own member. Hence, those words, "society concerned" does not indicate at respondent no.2 at all. The right to raise objection is therefore given to any member of society concerned who is voter. The Court is required to look into meaning of each word in this part of sentence, particularly the word "concerned". The provision of Rule 6(1) would have been otherwise complete even in absence of that word. Any member of society who is voter could have been permitted to raise that objection. But then the stipulated right to raise objection is given to any member of "society concerned". The word "concerned" has been used deliberately and it is settled principle that it can not be ignored as a mere surplusage or superfluous. That word has therefore got nexus with earlier part of Rule 6(1) and it implies to any member of society which is aggrieved because of that omission or error in provisional voters list. The later part confers that right to objection even on delegate authorised to vote on behalf of "such society" i.e "concerned society". So a delegate of society who is aggrieved by such omission or error also has a right to raise objection. The words in Rule 6(1) "such society" derive their meaning from words "society concerned" and there is no dichotomy contemplated by the Rule making authority while using these words. A member society having right to vote can raise objection to provisional list through any of its members or through any of its delegates, if it feels aggrieved by omission or error as contemplated Rule 6 (1). 9. Here it is not in dispute that respondent no.3 is a delegate of a society and that society is authorised to vote for election of respondent no.2 Specified Co-operative Society. 9. Here it is not in dispute that respondent no.3 is a delegate of a society and that society is authorised to vote for election of respondent no.2 Specified Co-operative Society. He therefore definitely has got locus and status to raise such objection. Society in relation to whom such error or mistake occurs in provisional list may not always be interested in getting it rectified. Present facts itself show that petitioner society classified as marketing societies was put in wrong constituency and it was not aggrieved thereby. Hence, if line of argument of petitioner is accepted, it will lead to an anomalous situation in which such mistakes beneficial to some societies will never be rectified in time and further prejudice the election process.-This is not & cannot be the intention of rule making authority. Moreover, the society in relation to whom there is error or mistake is definitely a voter as said error/mistake is in provisional voters list only. Emphasis on "society concerned" being voter therefore would not have been requested in said Rule 6(1). The emphasis therefore clearly points out to other Societies whose name also appear in provisional voters list. I, therefore, find no substance in the contentions raised by Advocate Chandurkar. 10. The Petition is therefore rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.