JUDGMENT Heard Shri Mahalle, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 4, Shri Samarth, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Shri Pande, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Shri Meghe, learned counsel for respondent No. 7. 2. The challenge in this writ petition was to non consideration of request of the petitioner to place his society (Respondent No. 6) in category of Apex Societies for the purposes of election of Respondent No. 5 Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank. In view of various orders passed by this Court, the said request was considered by Respondent No. 4 Director and on 27.01.2010, he categorized Respondent No. 6 as Apex Society for Ginning and Pressing Cooperative Societies. This classification has also been challenged later on. The petitioner contends that Respondent No. 6 is also to be recognized as Apex Society of Marketing Cooperative Societies just like Respondent No. 7 Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation. In Byelaws governing Respondent No. 5 Bank, the constitution of Board of Directions is made in Byelaw No. 51 and as per its clause B, one Director representing Apex Marketing Cooperative Society registered in Maharashtra State finds birth on that Board. The petitioner who is representative of Respondent No. 6 has contended that Respondent No. 6 is entitled to be placed along with Respondent No. 7 in said Constituency and hence there has to be election for the post of Director from that constituency. This Court issued notice in the matter on 04.01.2010 and shortly thereafter on 07.01.2010 permitted the petitioner to file his nomination from category mentioned in above Byelaw No. 51B subject to further orders of this Court in the matter. On 19.01.2010, by detailed order, Respondent No. 4 was directed to take decision upon the representation submitted by the petitioner for declaring it as Apex Society for Cooperative Marketing Societies. In view of the orders dated 27.01.2010 passed by Respondent No. 4, later on the petition is allowed to be amended to raise challenge to that order, to join Respondent No. 7 State Marketing Cooperative Federation as party respondent. Considering the nature of controversy, matter has been heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Shri Mahalle, learned counsel has contended that there was only one society dealing with Marketing of Agricultural Produce viz. Respondent No. 7 till 1984. Considering the nature of controversy, matter has been heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Shri Mahalle, learned counsel has contended that there was only one society dealing with Marketing of Agricultural Produce viz. Respondent No. 7 till 1984. The said respondent is established in 1957, & after introduction of Cotton Monopoly Scheme and Respondent No. 6 came to be formed for sale, purchase, processing etc. of cotton and hence after 1984 Respondent No. 7 is not Apex Society for Cooperative Societies dealing with Marketing, processing etc. of cotton. He has in this background invited attention to certificate of registration issued to Respondent No. 6 to show its classification as Agricultural Society with subclassification as Marketing society under Section 12(1) of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act read with Rule 10(1) of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act or Rules). The objects of Respondent No. 6 from its Byelaws are also pointed out to show that it is not dealing only with Ginning and Pressing or processing of Cotton but also is marketing it. Attention is invited to statement made on affidavit by Respondent No. 7 that there was no representation received from Respondent No. 6 till 05.01.2010 and same is sought to be contradicted with oral statement that such representation or proposal was received on 02.01.2010. The recommendation of Respondent No. 4 dated 25.11.2009 is also pressed into service for this purpose. The learned counsel states that the petitioner apprehended design to keep him out of said election and hence it made representation in September 2009 itself. He further states that there was no occasion to raise this grievance earlier as Respondent No. 5 is being administered by democratically elected body for the first time now and after 1984 till election of such democratically body , it was under control of Respondent No. 7 through nominated Directors. He has also compared the Byelaws of Respondent No. 6 and Respondent No. 7 to urge that Respondent No. 6 Society stands on equal footing and is liable to be recognized at par with Respondent No. 7. The impugned decision dated 27.01.2010 notifying Respondent No. 6 as Apex Society for Ginning and Pressing Societies is stated to be malafide and bad in law. The impugned decision dated 27.01.2010 notifying Respondent No. 6 as Apex Society for Ginning and Pressing Societies is stated to be malafide and bad in law. The learned counsel contends that provisions of Rule 10 and Entry No. 1 & 6 in Table incorporated in that rule have not been deliberately properly interpreted. 4. Shri Mahalle, learned counsel contends that as all this exercise has been undertaken malafidely and constitutes fraud on Act and Rules and abuse of position, it is necessary to direct Respondent No. 4 to notify Respondent No. 6 as Apex Society for Marketing Cooperative Societies and then as Apex Society contemplated for electing a Director under Byelaw 51B on Board of Respondent No. 5 Bank. The election for one post of such director so far avoided must be directed to be conducted. 5. Shri Samarth, learned counsel has contended that society of the petitioner i.e. Respondent No. 6 has not made any grievance in the matter and hence petition as filed is without any locus and merit. He has further contended that allegations of malafides are misconceived and also irrelevant because the provisions of statute are very clear. According to him, the definition of Apex Society in Section 2(2) of the Act itself contemplates recognition of only one society and there cannot be more than one society functioning as Apex Society. He has in this background supported the notification dated 27.01.2010 and prayed for dismissal of petition. He further states that objection has been raised keeping an eye on election and the availability of elected body for the first time cannot be the reason for disturbing situation prevailing since 1984. His contention is, the election process is already over, there was no election from said constituency under Byelaw No. 51B and hence under writ jurisdiction, no interference is warranted. Without prejudice to these arguments, he also raised preliminary objection to urge that notification dated 27.01.2010 issued under Section 2(2) of the Act, is an administrative order and at the most it can be assailed in Revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, & the Single Judge of this Court does not possess jurisdiction to take cognizance of such dispute. 6. Shri Meghe, learned counsel has adopted the arguments of Shri Samarth, learned counsel. 6. Shri Meghe, learned counsel has adopted the arguments of Shri Samarth, learned counsel. Shri Pande, learned counsel has supported the petitioner and stated that as the petitioner has already knocked the doors of Court, Respondent No. 6 did not find it necessary to approach this Court. 7. In reply, Shri Mahalle, learned counsel has reiterated in brief the arguments in the light of Byelaws of Respondents No. 6 & 7. He has also invited attention to judgment delivered by me in the case of Jagannath vs. Minister of State, reported at 2007 (1) Mh. L.J. 771, to state that the orders passed cannot be treated as administrative orders. 8. The arguments above clearly show that dispute centers around the categorization of the petitioner as Apex Society for Ginning and Pressing Cooperative Societies. The perusal of notification dated 27.01.2010 issued by Respondent No. 4 shows that it has given reasons for putting Respondent No. 6 society in the category of Apex Society for Ginning and Pressing Cooperative Societies. The consideration by Respondent No. 4 shows that Respondent No. 6a federal society, has got 142 Ginning and Pressing Cooperative Societies as its members with 27 Cooperative Textile Mills. Similarly, 152 Cooperative Sale Purchase societies are its members. He has found that though Membership of Respondent No. 6 is open to sale purchase societies operating at Tahsil level, still that is in region where cotton is grown. Only the Cooperative Societies acting as sub agents can be given membership. Thus, other cooperative sale purchase societies not dealing with cotton & spread over in the Maharashtra cannot become its members. In contradistinction, he found that all such sale purchase societies at Tahsil level can become members of Respondent No. 7 and there is no restriction upon nature of activity for membership in their Byelaws as contained in Byelaws of Respondent No. 6 society. He has further found that most of the Ginning and Pressing Societies are members of Respondent No. 6 and very few of them are members of Respondent No. 7. He has found that these Ginning and Pressing Societies are covered under Rule 10(6)(A) of the Rules and because of this position, Respondent No. 6 can be declared as Apex Society for these Ginning Pressing societies. He has found that these Ginning and Pressing Societies are covered under Rule 10(6)(A) of the Rules and because of this position, Respondent No. 6 can be declared as Apex Society for these Ginning Pressing societies. In other words, Respondent 4 found that because of its byelaws and position, Respondent 7 was/is Apex Society for marketing activities which can be undertaken by any primary cooperative society while Respondent 6 does not enjoy this position. 9. The perusal of Byelaws produced before this Court show that Respondent No. 6 has got as its object purchasing of raw cotton, processing it and supplying pure cotton to its members and consumers. Byelaw No. 5 shows exclusive object of advancing the sale purchase, processing, ginning and marketing of cotton thereby helping members and agriculturist to improve its quality. There is no such restriction in Byelaws of Respondent No. 7. The application of mind by Respondent No. 4 in this respect, therefore, cannot be faulted with. 10. The Rules, particularly Rule No. 10 deals with classification and subclassification of societies. The registrar is obliged to undertake that exercise after a society is registered. First entry in Table I deals with agricultural society and marketing society as its subclass. In examples given in third column of this table, all purchase and sale unions and marketing societies of agricultural produce are shown as covered. Entry 6 gives class of societies as processing society. Agricultural processing society is subclass of this entry. By way of illustration, it is mentioned that societies which process agricultural produce like cooperative sugar factories and oil mills, can be the societies falling in this classification. These rules make clear distinction between agricultural society and processing society. The marketing societies are covered under class of agricultural societies while societies processing agricultural produce are sub classified under agricultural processing society. Respondent No. 4 has recognized Respondent No. 7 as Apex Society for marketing society in State of Maharashtra. All marketing societies whether dealing with cotton or not are covered thereunder. In view of this situation, the said authority found that as per Byelaw No. 9 of Respondent No. 6, the sale purchase societies at Tahsil level in cotton growing region & working as subagents, Ginning Pressing Cooperative Societies working as Processing Agents, Cooperative Mills and State Government can become its member. In view of this situation, the said authority found that as per Byelaw No. 9 of Respondent No. 6, the sale purchase societies at Tahsil level in cotton growing region & working as subagents, Ginning Pressing Cooperative Societies working as Processing Agents, Cooperative Mills and State Government can become its member. The finding in this respect recorded by Respondent No. 4 are already briefly commented above. Having noticed that Respondent No. 7 is already an Apex Society for Marketing societies or all marketing actvities and there is no Apex Society for Ginning Pressing Cooperative Societies and such societies in majority are members of Respondent No. 5, the notification under Section 2 (2) has been issued giving it recognition as Apex Society for Ginning Pressing Societies. Though Shri Mahalle, learned counsel has pointed out that Respondent No. 6 also deal with & cooperative marketing societies can also be its members, that by itself is not a sufficient to recognize Respondent No. 6 as Apex society even for marketing societies. 11. The perusal of Section 2(2) of the Act reveals that to qualify as an apex society, its area of operation must extend to whole of State of Maharashtra and its main object has to be to promote the principal objects of the societies affiliated to it as its members and to provide facilities and services to them. The Registry has to classify ie recognize such society as an apex society. This classification & recognition of Respondent No. 6 has come for the first time on 27.01.2010. The perusal of Bye laws of Respondent No. 5 shows that that classification confers entitlement upon it as a member to have its representative on its Board of Director. In this situation, it is clear that the order of classification cannot be read as an administrative order. When a revision under Section 154 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act can be filed against such an order, which is in the nature of notification, it is clear that it is quasi judicial order and hence writ petition before Single Judge of this Court is maintainable. The entitlement or rights of Respondent No. 6 and its member cooperative societies gets affected by such classification and hence the same can be challenged by it or by its aggrieved member. The entitlement or rights of Respondent No. 6 and its member cooperative societies gets affected by such classification and hence the same can be challenged by it or by its aggrieved member. The petitioner before this Court is admittedly one such member & its representative nominated for the purposes of election of board of directors of Respondent No. 5 Bank and hence he has locus to file writ petition. The issue is considered in necessary details in Jagannath vs. Minister of State,(supra), by me and hence further consideration in more details in this matter is not necessary. 12. The word "apex" in apex society itself means at top or summit. Shri Samarth, learned counsel has relied upon various dictionaries including Law Laxicon to press this issue. The consideration by Respondent No. 4 also shows that there can be only one apex society in State of Maharashtra for particular type of societies ie for cooperative societies dealing in particular activity. The facts here show that insofar as marketing functions are concerned, there is already a apex society in the shape of Respondent No. 7 and hence though the petitioner may have some marketing societies as its members, that does not quality it to become a apex society for marketing societies. One federal society (here Respondent 7) satisfying ingredients of S.2(2) of the Act & capable of having universal following can be & has been recognized as an Apex Society. Respondent No. 4 has rightly found that said membership in case of Respondent 6 is open only to societies situated in cotton growing areas and not to societies beyond that area or activity. As against this, membership of Respondent No. 7 is open to all types of marketing societies in entire Maharashtra. Respondent No. 4 has also found that a apex society for Cooperative societies working in Ginning and Pressing sector is necessary and has accordingly granted that status to Respondent No. 6. I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error. There is no challenge to status of Respondent 7 as an apex society before me. Petitioner wants Respondent 6 also to be recognized as such with Respondent 7. Nothing to show permissibility of such exercise in four corners of law is being pointed out. In view of these findings, it is also apparent that allegations of malafides or previous history is not of any relevance. 13. Petitioner wants Respondent 6 also to be recognized as such with Respondent 7. Nothing to show permissibility of such exercise in four corners of law is being pointed out. In view of these findings, it is also apparent that allegations of malafides or previous history is not of any relevance. 13. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.