Judgment :- R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. In these group of petitions, challenge is raised to the orders passed by the District Cooperative Election Officers, who are appointed by the State Cooperative Election Authority, thereby directing deletion of names of respective petitioners from the final list of voters prepared for the purposes of holding elections to the Managing Committee of District Central Cooperative Bank. 3. The elections to the District Central Cooperative Banks, in the State, are declared by the State Co-operative Election Authority. Before finalisation of the voters' list in accordance with Rule 10(2) of the Rules, the primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies/Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Societies, who are members of the District Central Cooperative Bank, were called upon to submit their nominee under Rule 10(2) of the Rules. The qualifying date for the purposes of inclusion of name of the member in the preliminary voters' list was also communicated to the concerned society. On receipt of the resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the Primary Cooperative Society informing name of the nominee for recording votes at the election of District Central Cooperative bank, the name of the concerned society and its nominee was included in the preliminary voters' list. 4. It is not a matter of dispute in all these petitions that names of the societies and their nominees are included in the PRELIMINARY voters' list prepared for the purposes of holding elections to the District Central Cooperative Bank. However, at the stage of finalisation of voters list, name of the concerned society has been deleted referring to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1947 of 2015, dated 05.03.2015) to which, one of us (R.M.Borde, J.) is a member. It is recorded in the order passed by the District Cooperative Election Officer, while directing deletion of name of the society, that such of those primary societies, whose election falls due prior to 31.03.2013, are not entitled for extending protection under Section 166(4) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act in respect of continuation of Managing Committees of such societies and as such, resolution passed by the managing Committee of such primary cooperative society, whose election was due prior to 31.03.2013, is unauthorised one and cannot be taken note of. 5. 5. The petitioners contend that the order directing deletion of their names from the final voters list by the respective District Cooperative Election Officers is illegal for the reason that the order of deletion has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice since the petitioners have not been extended any opportunity of hearing before taking action of deletion of their names. It is also contended that the District Cooperative Election Officer ought to take a decision himself and shall not be guided by the higher authorities while performing his statutory functions. It is contended that the State Cooperative Election Authority does not have competence and authority in law to issue directives to the District Cooperative Election Officers in respect of statutory functions required to be performed by him. It is also contended that mere observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment referred to above, cannot be a ground for deletion of names of petitioners who were included in the preliminary voters' list. It is also contended that the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, are in the absence of consideration of relevant provisions of law and as such, does not have any binding effect. 6. The petitioners also contend that the District Co-operative Election Officer, while issuing impugned order, has acted beyond the scope of interference permissible under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. The petitioners, as such, pray for quashing the orders impugned in these petitions. 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for RespondentState as well as Shri Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for State Cooperative Election Authority support the order and contend that interference in the ongoing process of election is impermissible. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3982 , to contend that this Court shall not cause interference in the ongoing process of election. 8. The order passed by the District Cooperative Election Officer, in pursuance to the directives issued by the State Cooperative Election Authority instructing the concerned Returning Officers to take note of the observations made in the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1947 of 2015. 9. 8. The order passed by the District Cooperative Election Officer, in pursuance to the directives issued by the State Cooperative Election Authority instructing the concerned Returning Officers to take note of the observations made in the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1947 of 2015. 9. Writ Petition, referred to above, was presented by the petitioners therein praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, order or direction in the like nature, to the respondents to complete the process of elections of primary cooperative societies, who are the members of Respondent Bank before preparation and finalization of the voters list for the purposes of holding the elections to Respondent-Bank. Respondent-Bank, before the Court, is a federal society having primary cooperative societies as its members. While dealing with the issue raised in the petition, attention of the Court was invited to subsection (4) of Section 166 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which provides that all the primary societies, whose elections become due after 31.03.2015, the Managing Committees of such societies are entitled to continue till elections to such societies are held in accordance with provisions of the Act. It was observed by the Court on interpretation of the aforesaid provision, that it shall have to be presumed that, all those managing committees of primary societies, whose elections become due after 31st March, 2013, shall be entitled to send their representatives for the purpose of elections to Respondent-Bank. It is further observed that import of subsection (4) of Section 166 is that only in case of such of those primary societies, whose elections become due after 31.03.2013, the Managing Committee of such society shall be deemed to continue in office and shall have authorization to send their representative for elections to the Federal Society. In case of such of those societies, whose elections of managing committee become due before 31.03.2013, it cannot be construed that such committees continue for the purpose of sending their representatives to the Federal Society i.e. Respondent-Bank on proper construction of Section 166(4) of the Act. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that observations made by this Court in the aforesaid matter, may not sustain for the reason that subsection (15) of Section 73CB carved out an exception, which has not been taken into account by the Court. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that observations made by this Court in the aforesaid matter, may not sustain for the reason that subsection (15) of Section 73CB carved out an exception, which has not been taken into account by the Court. It is also contended that such a provision is incorporated in subsection (4) of Section 166 in view of substantial changes brought about in view of the Amendment Act of 2013. By virtue of the Amendment Act, the State Cooperative Election Authority has been constituted, which is responsible for conducting elections of cooperative societies in the State. The authority of the State Government to extend term of the Managing Committees of the societies, prescribed under old enactment, does not find place after the amendment. Whereas, the Societies have been mandated to inform the State Cooperative Election Authority before completion of term of the managing committee and make a suitable request for holding the elections. The State Cooperative Election Authority has also been mandated to hold elections of the Cooperative Societies in the State before completion of their tenure and install a newly elected committee soon after completion of tenure of the managing committee of the society. The power of the State Government to exempt the society or class of societies from operation of law, namely Section 73AAA and certain other provisions, has been withdrawn. The tenure of the Managing Committee has been prescribed under Section 73AAA as five years and no power of extension is invested with the State. These change brought about by virtue of Amending Act of 2013, necessitated making provision for continuance of term of the managing committee, whose term come to an end after 31.03.2013 for a period until holding of elections by the State Cooperative Election Authority. Although provision has been made in respect of constitution of State Cooperative Election Authority, same was not created for quite some time, which necessitated amendment to Section 73CB (15) providing for a deadline for completion of elections, which ultimately was extended by a recent amendment (40 of 2014) on 23.12.2014 up to 30.06.2015. It is, thus, contended that while issuing directions, as above in Writ Petition No.1947 of 2015, provisions of Section 73CB (15) were not properly construed. The submission made by the petitioners, in this regard, is acceptable. 11. It is, thus, contended that while issuing directions, as above in Writ Petition No.1947 of 2015, provisions of Section 73CB (15) were not properly construed. The submission made by the petitioners, in this regard, is acceptable. 11. It shall have to be considered that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act has undergone extensive amendments by virtue of Amending Act No.16 of 2013. The amendments were enforced in view of the Ordinance issued on 14.01.2013, which has received ascent of the Governor and thereafter published in the Official Gazette on 13.08.2013. Certain provisions of the Act are required to be taken into account. 12. Section 11 of the Act provides for power of the Registrar to decide certain questions. When a question arises, whether a person is an agriculturist or whether any person resides in the area of operation of the society or not, or whether a person is or is not engaged in or carrying on any profession, business or employment, or whether a person belongs or does not belong to such class of persons as declared under subsection (1A) of section 22 and has or has not incurred a disqualification under that subsection, such question shall be decided by the Registrar and his decision shall be final, but no decision adverse to any such person shall be given without giving him an opportunity of being heard. The major change brought about by virtue of Amendment of 2013 is constitution of State Cooperative Election Authority for the purposes of holding elections to the cooperative societies in the State. In view of provisions of subsection (10) of Section 73CB, 'notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the election of the committee of each society shall be conducted by the State Cooperative Election Authority before the expiry of the term of the existing committee so as to ensure that the newly elected members of the committee assume office immediately on the expiry of the office of the members of the outgoing committee. The State Cooperative Election Authority is also mandated by virtue of subsection (15 of Section 73CB, to hold election to the committee and consequent election of the office bearers of the society, which is due on the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2013, or may become due after such date, until 31st March, 2013 shall be held before 30th June, 2015. The provision is applicable notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or Rules or the byelaws of any cooperative society. 13. It is, thus, clear that the State Cooperative Election Authority is entrusted with the task of completing election process of the managing committees of the societies, whose elections were due on the date of enforcement of Amendment Act of 2013 or may become due after such date, until 31st March, 2013, by virtue of Amendment Act No.40 of 2014, deadline is prescribed to complete the election process up to 30th June, 2015. The class of societies mentioned in subsection (15) of Section 73CB, is such of those societies whose elections become due on the date of commencement of Amendment Act of 2013, which date is 14.02.2013. Whereas, the Section further provides for extending the aforesaid date until 31.03.2014, obviously, for the reason that the said later date has been mentioned in Section 166(4) for the purposes of drawing a presumption that the committees of such societies, whose election become due after 31.03.2013, shall continue till elections of such societies are held. 14. Another reason, which appears for providing such deadline is that although the Act makes a provision for creation of the State Cooperative Election Authority, it was not constituted for quite a some time and as such, the deadline for holding elections by the State Cooperative Election Authority was extended from time to time and lastly up to 30.06.2015. It would be appropriate to consider the provisions of Section 166(4), which reads thus: 166. Repeal, saving and construction: (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, as amended by the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2013, but subject to the provisions of subsection (15) of section 73CB, the committees of which the elections become due after the 31st March, 2013, shall continue till the elections to such societies are held under the provisions of this Act as amended by the said Act. All the orders of the Administrator, Liquidator or the Registrar shall continue for the period mentioned in such order as if such orders are passed under this Act as amended by the said Act. All the orders of the Administrator, Liquidator or the Registrar shall continue for the period mentioned in such order as if such orders are passed under this Act as amended by the said Act. All proceedings pending before the Registrar, person authorised by him, Liquidator or any other officer, or authority or Court under the provisions of this Act, shall stand transferred wherever necessary to the Registrar or any corresponding officer or, authority or Court under the provisions of this Act as amended by the said Act and shall be continued or disposed of by such Registrar, officer, authority or Court, in accordance with the provisions of this Act as amended by the said Act: Provided that, any such committee of the society shall continue till the newly elected committee assumes the office. The presumption in respect of continuation of the committees of the societies, of which election become due after 31.03.2013, is provided under subsection (1), however, the same is subject to provisions of subsection (15) of Section 73CB. 15 As has been stated above, it is the responsibility of the State Cooperative Election Authority to hold elections of the societies in the State after enforcement of the Amendment Act of 2013 as well as such of the societies of which elections become due until 31.03.2013 also, it is the responsibility of the State Cooperative Election Authority to hold elections. 16. Another change brought about by the Amendment Act of 2013 is that Section 73AAA (3) provides the term of office of elected members of the societies and its office bearers as five years from the date of election. It is also to be taken note of, that Section 73G, which was referrable to Specified Cooperative Societies, prior to amendment, has been deleted. Section 73IB provides that the power of the State Government to postpone elections has been taken away by virtue of Amendment Act of 2013. Section 73G (2), which relates to Specified Cooperative Societies, provide for the term of of the office of the members of the managing committee for five years, which period was capable of being extended by the State Government, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, for the period not exceeding one year so, however, that the total period does not exceed six years in the aggregate. It was also provided under proviso to subsection 2B of Section 73G that, where the Collector fails to hold election to the committee of any such society, the term of office of the members of the committee of that society shall be deemed to have been extended till the date immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of the newly constituted committee. 17. The provisions, referred to above, in respect of Specified Cooperative Societies in respect of its tenure of five years or power of extension of the State Government for one year and continuance of the Managing Committees of such societies in certain circumstances until the date immediately preceding the date of first meeting of the newly constituted committee, has been deleted in the Amendment Act of 2013. The powers of the State Government to exempt all societies from the provisions of the Act, as contained in Section 157, has been restricted in the Amendment Act of 2013 and provision in respect of tenure of the Managing Committee of the society i.e. Section 73AAA, the State Government does not have any power to grant relaxation from operation of the said provision. It is for this reason and because of the changes brought about by virtue of Amendment Act, subsection (4) of Section 166, provides for a presumption in respect of continuance of the managing committees of such of those societies, which elections become due after 31.03.2013. So far as the societies, whose elections were due prior to enforcement of Amendment Act of 2014, by virtue of provisions of the Act of 1960, prior to its amendment, the tenure of the managing committees of such societies was protected until holding of elections and installation of the new managing committees of the societies or until taking of any adverse action by the State or the Registrar in accordance with Section 77A or Section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that exception is carved out in subsection (4) of Section 166, in relation to such of those societies whose elections are due even prior to March 2013, and that the Managing Committees of such societies also shall continue till the newly elected committee assumes office, shall have to be accepted. 18. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that exception is carved out in subsection (4) of Section 166, in relation to such of those societies whose elections are due even prior to March 2013, and that the Managing Committees of such societies also shall continue till the newly elected committee assumes office, shall have to be accepted. 18. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order passed by the District Cooperative Election Officer, directing deletion of their names is without application of mind to the record and that he has merely acted on the instructions issued by the State Cooperative Election Authority. It is contended that it is the statutory function of the District Cooperative Election Officer to finalise the list of voters in accordance with Rules of 2014 and he is not expected to act on the instructions of any other authority while performing such statutory function. Rules 10 and 11 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election To Committee) Rules, 2014, relating to the particulars to be included in the provisional list of voters and claims and objections to the provisional list of voters and final list of voters for the societies having society or societies and individuals as members, are relevant for consideration and those are quoted as below: 10. Particulars to be included in the provisional list of voters for the societies having society or societies and individuals as members: (1) The provisional list of voters in case of individual Active members shall contain the surname, name, father's or husband's name, age, gender (in alphabetical order) if any, with address recorded in the register of members in Form 'E3' of every person entitled to be registered as voter with such other particulars as may be necessary to identify him. (2) Where a society or firm is the member of Society, the District Cooperative Election Officer or the Taluka or Ward Cooperative Election Officer shall publish a date for calling the name of representative, one hundred and fifty days prior to the date of expiry of term of office of the Committee. (2) Where a society or firm is the member of Society, the District Cooperative Election Officer or the Taluka or Ward Cooperative Election Officer shall publish a date for calling the name of representative, one hundred and fifty days prior to the date of expiry of term of office of the Committee. And such society shall send the name of representative duly authorized to vote at the election on behalf of the society or firm, so as to reach it to the office of the District Cooperative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward Cooperative Election Officer at least one hundred and twenty days prior to the date of expiry of term of office of the Committee. The representative authorized by the member society shall be an active member of the member society. (3) While communicating the name of the representative to the society the affiliated society shall enclose a copy of the resolution of the annual general body meeting of the society or its committee as provided under its bylaws, where the representative is so authorized. The society shall include in the list of voters the names of all such representatives as have been communicated to it before the date fixed for publication of the provisional list of voters by the District Cooperative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward Cooperative Election Officer. In addition to the names of representatives, the list shall contain the name of the affiliated societies, their registration numbers and addresses with names of the constituency, if any, to which they belong. (4) A society which has communicated the name of its representative shall, by like resolution, be permitted to change the name of its representative only in case of death of the representative or where there is newly elected committee of the member society not later than five days before the last date for making nominations. 11. (4) A society which has communicated the name of its representative shall, by like resolution, be permitted to change the name of its representative only in case of death of the representative or where there is newly elected committee of the member society not later than five days before the last date for making nominations. 11. Claims and objections to the provisional list of voters and the final list of voters for the societies having society or societies and individuals as members: (1) When any provisional list of voters is published for inviting claims and objections, any omission or error in respect of name or address or other particulars in the list may be brought to the notice of the District Cooperative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward Cooperative Election Officer in writing by any member of the society concerned who is a voter or any representative authorized to vote on behalf of such society during office hours within ten days from the date of publication of the provisional list of voters. (2) Any member of the society concerned making a claim or raising objection shall do so by a separate petition, which shall be presented to the District Cooperative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward Cooperative Election Officer during office hours, before the last date published for inviting claims and objections. Such claims or objections shall be preferred in writing and state the grounds on which the claim is based or the objection is raised, as the case may be. (3) The District Cooperative Election Officer, or Taluka or Ward Cooperative Election Officer shall, after making such enquiries as deemed necessary in this regard, consider each claim or objection and give his decision thereon in writing to the persons concerned within ten days from the last date prescribed for receiving the claims and objections and final voters list should be published within the period of fifteen days from the last date prescribed for receiving operative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward Cooperative Election Officer after deciding all claims and objection shall be final list of voters. (4) The copies of the final list of voters shall be displayed on the notice board of the District Cooperative Election Officer and also on the notice board of the society at least ten days before the declaration of the election programme and in no case later than fifteen days from the finalization of claims and objections. The District Cooperative Election Officer may also cause it to be published on the official website of the SCEA, if any. (5) If any change in the final voters list in accordance with subrule (4) of rule 10 is required, the District Cooperative Election Officer or the person authorized by him, after making such inquiry as he deems fit, make necessary changes in the final voters list. 19. It is the contention of the petitioner that while preparing provisional list of voters, it is for the District Cooperative Election Officer or Taluka Cooperative Election Officer or Ward Cooperative Election Officer to publish a date for calling the name of representative, one hundred and fifty days prior to the date of expiry of term of office of the committee; and on receipt of names of the delegates, the provisional list of voters has to be published in accordance with the programme. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 provides option to the societies to change name of its representative only in case of death of the representative or where there is newly elected committee of the member society not later than five days before the last date for making nominations. Rule 11(5) authorizes the District Cooperative Election Officer to hold an inquiry in respect of request made by a society under subrule (4) of Rule 10 and effect necessary changes in the final voter list. Rule 11 of the Rules also empowers the District Cooperative Election Officer or Taluka Cooperative Election Officer or Ward Cooperative Election Officer to entertain an objection in writing in respect of any omission or error in respect of name or address or other particulars in the list. The objections can be entertained if presented within the time provided under the programme and on consideration of such claims and objections, the District Cooperative Election Officer or Taluka Cooperative Election Officer. The objections can be entertained if presented within the time provided under the programme and on consideration of such claims and objections, the District Cooperative Election Officer or Taluka Cooperative Election Officer. or Ward Cooperative Election Officer shall have to give his decision in writing to the person concerned within ten days from the last date prescribed for receiving claims and objections and final voters list shall be published within fifteen days from the last date prescribed for receiving claims and objections. The list so published shall be final list of voters. 20. It is contended by the petitioners that there was no objection to the enlistment of petitioners in the provisional voters list nor there was any objection which could have been entertained by the District Cooperative Election Officer in accordance with subrule (1) of Rule 11 and as such, decision taken by the District Cooperative Election Officer, directing deletion of their names from the final voters list is erroneous and illegal. 21. It is contended that nobody has brought to the notice of District Cooperative Election Officer any flaw in the final list of voters nor any objection permissible within the ambit of subrule (1) of Rule 11 has been noticed by the District Cooperative Election Officer and as such, it was impermissible for him to act and pass impugned order. 22. Reliance is placed by the petitioners on the judgment in the matter of Chandrika Jha Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1984 AIR (SC) 322, to contend that it was impermissible for the District Cooperative Election Officer to act upon the instructions given by the State Election Authority. In the reported matter, the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Bihar, in exercise of powers conferred on him under the byelaws, nominated the Committee of 17 members to be the first Board of Directors for the Cooperative Bank for a period of six months. The first Board of Directors constituted by the Registrar was not interested in holding the election of the Board of Directors and in stead, with the intervention of then Chief Minister of Bihar, got its term extended from time to time and elections of the new Board of Directors were postponed without any lawful justification. After resignation of the Chief Minister, Minister of Industries, State of Bihar, issued directions to the Commissioner of Cooperation to reconstitute the Committee, which was accordingly reconstituted. After resignation of the Chief Minister, Minister of Industries, State of Bihar, issued directions to the Commissioner of Cooperation to reconstitute the Committee, which was accordingly reconstituted. While dealing with the challenge, the Supreme Court, in para 11 of the judgment, has observed thus: “..... The executive power of the State vested in the Governor under Article 154(1) connotes the residual or governmental functions that remain after the legislative and judicial functions are taken away. The executive power includes acts necessary for the carrying on or supervision of the general administration of the State including both a decision as to action and the carrying out of the decision. Some of the functions exercised under “executive powers” may include powers such as the supervisory jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 65A of the Act. The Executive cannot, however, go against the provisions of the Constitution or of any law. Since the action of the State Government was found to be violative of law, it was struck down. 23. In the instant matter, directives have been issued by the State Cooperative Election Authority directing the District Cooperative Election Officer/Registrar to take note of the directions given by the Division Bench, cited therein and to prepare final list of voters. The instructions issued by the State Election Cooperative Authority cannot be equated with the directions issued by the Chief Minister and Minister of Industries in the Bihar matter. It would be within the powers of State Cooperative Election Authority to issue directions under the powers invested in it under Section 73CB(1) of superintendence, direction and control of preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections. However, the District Election Officer has to exercise functions in accordance with the Election Rules of 2014.The Apex Court in the matter of Mohinder singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 has observed thus : “It is true that Article 324 has to be rad in the light of the constitutional scheme and the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951. The Article, however, operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation and the words superintendence, direction and control as well as conduct of all elections are in the broadest terms. Article 324 on the face of it, vests vast functions which may be powers or duties essentially administrative and marginally even adjudicative or legislative. The Article, however, operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation and the words superintendence, direction and control as well as conduct of all elections are in the broadest terms. Article 324 on the face of it, vests vast functions which may be powers or duties essentially administrative and marginally even adjudicative or legislative. Provisions of Article 243K are pari materia to those of Article 324 of the Constitution of India. Article 243K operates in areas left unoccupied by the legislation. The words superintendence, direction and control are indicative of the broad sweep of the constitutional provisions. 24. Thus, whatever is necessary for conduct of election comes within the sweep of the term superintendence, direction and control and the Election Commission is capable of doing such acts and issue necessary directions for smooth functioning of elections. We, therefore, are of the view that the State Cooperative Election Authority is justified in adopting suitable measures in the instant matter for giving effect to the statutory provisions. It thus becomes obligatory on the part of the State Cooperative Election Authority under its powers to devise suitable methodology to hold elections. The State Cooperative Election Authority, while exercising superintendence and control over elections of cooperative societies, can issue directives in conformity with provisions of Act and Rules framed thereunder. When the provisions of the Act or Rules are silent as regards any particular issue or any contingency arises, which is not capable of being redressed under the Act, State Cooperative Election Authority can devise modalities and issue instructions so as to ensure smooth and proper conduct of elections. The State Cooperative Election Authority can issue directions, but such directions shall not be violative of any of the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act or Rules framed thereunder. The State Cooperative Election Authority derives power from Act and has to exercise powers within limits of Act and Rules as contrasted from Election Commission which derives power from provisions of Constitution of India. 25. It is the contention of the petitioners that exercise of powers by the District Cooperative Election Officer shall have to be in consonance with Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules of 2014. 25. It is the contention of the petitioners that exercise of powers by the District Cooperative Election Officer shall have to be in consonance with Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules of 2014. It is contended that scope of inquiry by the District Cooperative Election Officer is limited to the objections which relates to omission or error in respect of name or address or other particulars in the voters list and nothing beyond that. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 provides that the District Cooperative Election Officer, or Taluka or Ward Cooperative Election Officer shall, after making such enquiries as deemed necessary in this regard, consider each claim or objection and give his decision thereon in writing. It is contended that the phraseology, “such enquiries as deemed necessary in this regard” is referrable to subject matter governed by sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 alone. It is pointed out that provisions of Rule 11 (1) are pari materia with Rule 6 of Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971. The scope of inquiry under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1971 was a matter of consideration in the matter of Dhondiba Parshuram Lokade and others Vs. Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar karkhana Ltd and others reported in 1979(0) BCI 43. The Division Bench of this Court has observed in paragraphs 40 to 44 of the judgment as quoted below : 40. Thus, under Rule 6(1), all that the Collector is entitled to, and permitted to, do is to ensure the identity of the voter concerned, and if per chance, the identity is not sufficiently established in the provisional voters' list to take steps within the ambit of Rule 6(1) to see that it is. There is nothing in Rule 6(1) which empowers the Collector to hold a detailed inquiry, as was done in the instant case, whether a person is qualified to be on the Register of Members, and if not to delete his name from the provisional list of voters. Under section 38(2) of the Societies Act, the Register of Members is prima facie evidence of membership. It is not open to the Collector to upset that Register by holding an inquiry under Rule 6(1), which contemplates a very summary inquiry, confined only to the aspects set out in that Rule and nothing else. 41. Under section 38(2) of the Societies Act, the Register of Members is prima facie evidence of membership. It is not open to the Collector to upset that Register by holding an inquiry under Rule 6(1), which contemplates a very summary inquiry, confined only to the aspects set out in that Rule and nothing else. 41. The combined effect of Rules 4, 5 and 6 is that the powers of the Collector under Rule 6, though not without responsibility, are more in their nature, mechanical. He has to act as a guard or watchdog and ensure that the identity of every person whose name appears in the provisional voters' list tallies with the person in the Register of Members. The intention behind, and the scope of these three Rules is to ensure that every person whose name appears in the Register of Members, should also appear in the voters' list, so that no person in the Register of Members is left out from the provisional voters' list by reason of some omission or error in respect of the particulars enumerated in Rules 5 and 6. 42. Furthermore, what cannot be lost sight of is that under Rule 4(2), it is an authenticated list that has to be sent by the Society to the Collector. In the Act or the Rules, there is no definition of the word “authenticated”. However, the dictionary meaning of the word “authenticate” to be found in Random House Dictionary is : “To make authoritative or valid. To establish as genuine. To establish the authorship or origin conclusively or unquestionably.” Thus it must be assumed that the authenticated list required to be sent to the Collector under Rule 4(2) is the correct list and correctly sets out the names of the person appearing in the Register of Members. Under Rule 6, there is no presumption or any scope for inference that the Collector is expected to go out of his way and to do detention work, in the face of the authenticated list furnished to him. In this case, we are informed that the authenticated list has in fact been authenticated by the Chartered Accountant of the Society. There is nothing even remotely to suggest that this list is an other than what is purports to be, namely a correct reproduction of the names pf the persons appearing in the Register of Members. 43. In this case, we are informed that the authenticated list has in fact been authenticated by the Chartered Accountant of the Society. There is nothing even remotely to suggest that this list is an other than what is purports to be, namely a correct reproduction of the names pf the persons appearing in the Register of Members. 43. It must also be remembered that the scope of the inquiry by the Collector under Rule 6 is not only limited in nature, but is also of an extremely summary nature. Under Rule 4(2), the voters' list must reach the Collector by 15th July and copies of the voters' list must be displayed by 20th July. Under Rule 6(2), the claimant or objector who makes a petition before the Collector must do so by 31st July and under Rule 6(4) the Collector must given his decision on such claim or objection within 10 days, namely by 10th August. These four dates, namely 15th July, 20th July, 31st July and 10th August emphasise the summary nature of the inquiry contemplated by Rule 6. There is nothing in this Rule from which it can every remotely be inferred that the Collector is authorised or empowered to hold a detailed inquiry as done in the instant case, call for documents to establish eligibility to membership, examine or cross-examine witnesses or otherwise dwell on the question whether a member deserves to be included in the Membership Register or not. The fact that the inquiry under Rule 6, is of a summary nature is also reflected from the fact that against his decision, no appeal has been provided. This emphasises that the inquiry, such as it is, under Rule 6 is not only a very summary inquiry, but also mechanical (though not without responsibility), limited only to the aspects set out in the Rule itself and no more. 44. It was urged on behalf of the Collector that in Rule 6(1) the word, “omission”, must not be read in conjunction with the words immediately following, but must be read only with the words “may be brought to the notice of the Collector”. This contention is not borne out by the plain reading of this Rule and merits rejection. 26. It was urged on behalf of the Collector that in Rule 6(1) the word, “omission”, must not be read in conjunction with the words immediately following, but must be read only with the words “may be brought to the notice of the Collector”. This contention is not borne out by the plain reading of this Rule and merits rejection. 26. It would be clear on consideration of the observations referred to above that while considering the limits of exercise of powers of the Collector while preparing a list of voters the Division Bench of this Court has held that the rules do not even remotely authorise the Collector to hold a detailed inquiry by requiring production of document to establish eligibility to membership, examine or cross-examine witnesses or otherwise dwell on the question whether a member deserves to be included in the Membership Register or not. The Court ruled that inquiry under section 6 is of summary nature and is reflected from the fact that against said decision no appeal has been provided. 27. Similar view has been expressed by learned Single Judge of this Court while dealing with the matter of Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1997(Supp.) Bom.C.R.203 : 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 543 . The court has observed in paragraph no. 21 of the judgment that “It is true that the Collector cannot under the garb of inquiry under subrules 5, 6 and 7 hold the exercise whether such person is entitled to be a member or not. If the Collector in such enquiry goes into entitlement to membership of person shown in the register of members, it would be without jurisdiction. 28. Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Karbhari Maruti Agawan and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 1527 observed while interpreting the provisions of Specified Cooperative societies Election Rules, 1971, that if the Collector being responsible to hold election, meaning thereby valid elections, comes across certain objections and forwards those objections to the Registrar, this by itself will not be assailable. If some irregularity is pointed out to the Collector, he would always be free to bring it to the notice of the Registrar who would be competent to go into the question. If some irregularity is pointed out to the Collector, he would always be free to bring it to the notice of the Registrar who would be competent to go into the question. It is further observed that the Registrar has all the powers to go into the question of qualification or disqualification of the member even when provisional list of voters was published. Since the Registrar can exercise his powers suo motu also these provisions in the statute are not merely enabling but they speak about the duty cast on the Registrar. While exercising his powers, the Registrar will not allow the parties to have fishing enquiries and will not allow withholding of the elections. He has power to seize the record if it is not produced before him by the Society, he has to hear claimants, objectors and affected persons expeditiously and give his orders directing the necessary corrections. But he should do so before the list is finalized and is declared the final list of voters for that election. 29. On consideration of the Rules, there can be no dual opinion that the District Cooperative Election Officer shall have to take his own decision, as mandated by the Rules. The objection raised by the petitioners that the order has been issued by the District Cooperative Election Officer without extending an opportunity of hearing to them and as such, the order passed is in breach of observance of principles of natural justice, is also required to be taken into consideration. It was the responsibility of the District Cooperative Election Officer to extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing any adverse orders. Since the order has been issued by the District Cooperative Election Officer in breach of observance of principles of natural justice, same is required to be quashed and set aside. 30. Respondents have raised an objection in respect of maintainability of the petition on the ground that process of election has commenced and that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2001(8) SCC 509 , it would be impermissible for the court to go into the question raised in the matter. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2001(8) SCC 509 , it would be impermissible for the court to go into the question raised in the matter. The judgment cited above has been considered in the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V. & P. Sangh Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 133 : 2004(5) ALL M.R. (SC) 236. In that case challenge was to the electoral roll prepared on the basis of byelaws which were held to be illegal. The Apex Court repelled the argument that the preparation of electoral roll being intermediary stage of the election process, challenge to the electoral roll cannot be entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court further held that where the voters' list had been prepared on the basis of nonexistent rules, it would be illegal and the Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the matter of Pundlik Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 181 the view expressed in Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V. & P. Sangh Ltd. (cited supra) has been reiterated. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Chandrakant Mahadev Patole and others V. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2010 ALL M R (Supp) 457 referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has taken a view that interference with election process is permissible if the same was not in conformity with the relevant statutory provisions. The objection raised by the Respondents as regards maintainability of the petition is devoid of substance. 31. In the instant matter, without impeding ongoing process of elections, the illegality, that has occurred, can be cured and adoption of such course is permissible in view of the judgment referred to above. 32. For the reasons recorded above, writ petitions deserve to be allowed and same are accordingly allowed. The orders impugned in the petitions, passed by the respective District Cooperative Election Officers thereby directing deletion of names of petitioners from the final list of voters prepared for the purposes of holding elections to the respective District Central Cooperative Banks, relying upon the directives issued by the State Cooperative Election Authority, referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1947 of 2015, are quashed and set aside. 33. Rule is accordingly made absolute. 33. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of.