JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Rule. Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the Authorized Officer/Election Officer (Annexure A to the petition), by which, the objections raised by the petitioner against inclusion of the names of the members of the managing committee of respondent nos. 5 to 15 in the list of voters has been overruled. 3. The facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are as under: 3.1. That the Jamnagar District Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank") is a specified society within the meaning of Section 74 (C) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and therefore, general elections for the members of Managing Committee of the said Bank is to be held as per the provisions of Chapter XI- A of the Act r/w Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules"). 3.2. That the term of the elected body of the Managing Committee of the Bank expired on 2.7.2013. However, the elections were not being held and therefore, the petition came to be filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 12264 of 2013 for appropriate writ, direction and order to hold the election of the Bank. That at the time of hearing of the aforesaid Special Civil Application, it was declared on behalf of the State that the Registrar is desirous to see that the election of all the specified co-operative societies, which has become due, is held and he further declared that the attempt shall be made to get the election held within a period of 6 months from 15.7.2013 so as to enable the voters to have their representatives in the managing committee of the concerned Society. In the light of the aforesaid declaration, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.08.2013 disposed of the aforesaid Special Civil Application directing the State to act as per the declaration and to hold the election. It appears that despite the aforesaid, election was not held and therefore, one another petition being Special Civil Application No. 7185 of 2014 came to be preferred seeking direction to hold election at the earliest and to restrain the managing committee from taking any policy decision and also to quash and set aside the major policy decision taken in violation of the order dated 08.08.2013. At this stage, it is required to be noted that while disposing of the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 12264 of 2013 vide order dated 08.08.2013, the Division Bench also recorded the statement on behalf of the State that appointment of custodian/administrator is not contemplated. However, as the tenure of the body had expired, the Division Bench directed to continue the body whose term had already expired as care taker and further observed and directed that continuation of the present body shall be as care taker and not appointing of the custodian/Administrator in place of the Managing Committee of the petitioner society shall be on condition that they shall not take any major policy decision without the prior approval of the District Registrar concerned of the district. It was apprehended and it was alleged that Managing Committee of the Bank had taken major policy decisions without approval of the Registrar and in breach of and/or in violation of order dated 08.08.2013, in the subsequent petition being Special Civil Application No. 7185 of 2014 it was also prayed to quash and set aside the major policy decisions alleged to have been in violation of the order dated 08.08.2013. That the subsequent petition being Special Civil Application No. 7185 of 2014 came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2014 whereby the Division Bench of this Court directed that the election be declared within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. That the subsequent petition being Special Civil Application No. 7185 of 2014 came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2014 whereby the Division Bench of this Court directed that the election be declared within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. That pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.12.2014, respondent no.4 herein - Election Officer- Prant Officer, Jamnagar has published the programme for publication of list of voters on 17.12.2014 and according to which provisional list of voter was to be published on 06.01.2015 and the objections were to be invited against the provisional list of voters and after considering the objections, final voters list was to be published on 29.01.2015. That accordingly, provisional list of voters has been published on 06.01.2015 by the Election Officer, including the respondent nos. 5 to 15 (delegate of respondent nos. 5 to 15) in the provisional list of voters for constituency of Jodiya Taluka. The name of the petitioner also was included in the said voters list as delegate of one Adarsh Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited and Jamdudhai Vividh Karyakari, Sahakari Mandali Limited. 3.3. That according to the petitioner and bye- laws of the bank, more particularly, bye- law No. 30(1)(a), 10 constituencies are provided whereby for every Taluka of Jamnagar District election is to be held for one seat. According to the petitioner, bye-law also provided for holding elections of two seats which shall be elected by all societies included in the Jamnagar District. That the present petition is with regard to the constituency of Jodia Taluka i.e. one seat as per bye - law no.30(1)(a) (8) of the bye-laws. That against inclusion of the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies (delegate of respondent nos. 5 to 15) was in the provisional voter's list for constituency of Jodiya Taluka. That by impugned order, the Election Officer has overruled the objection raised by the petitioner by observing that list of voter's has been published absolutely in consonance with the Rule 4 of Rules, 1982. 3.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned decision of the Election Officer overruling the objection raised by the petitioner against inclusion of the names of the respondent nos. 3.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned decision of the Election Officer overruling the objection raised by the petitioner against inclusion of the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies in the provisional list of voters of Jodiya constituency, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4.0. Shri Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned decision of the Election Officer overruling/rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner against the inclusion of the names of respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies in the provisional list of voters of Jodiya Taluka is absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act, Rules 1982 and the bye-laws, more particularly, bye-law no.30(1)(a)(8) of the Bye-laws of the Bank. 4.1. It is submitted by Shri Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner that respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies were situated in revenue limits of Jodiya Taluka of Jamnagar District. However, the State Government in its Revenue Department formed new Morbi District vide its notification dated 13.08.2013 in exercise of powers under Land Revenue Code. It is submitted that thereafter vide notification dated 15.08.2013 issued by the Revenue Department of the State Government, 14 villages are excluded from the Jodia Taluka of Jamnagar District and they are included in revenue limits of Morbi Taluka of Morbi District. It is submitted that the villages, in which, the respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies are operating are no longer in the revenue limits of Jamnagar District and therefore, they cannot participate in the elections of Jamnagar District Cooperative Bank. It is further submitted by Shri Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner that if any society/member ceases to belong to the revenue limits of concerned taluka and/or District, the said society/member cannot claim right to vote or contest in the election of federal society. In support of his above submissions, he has heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2002(2) GLH 773 . It is submitted that thus, election officer has completely acted contrary to the settled legal proposition. 4.2. In support of his above submissions, he has heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2002(2) GLH 773 . It is submitted that thus, election officer has completely acted contrary to the settled legal proposition. 4.2. It is further submitted by Shri Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner that as such the election for seat in question is concerned, as per bye-law no.30(1)(a)(8) election is being held for societies included within the revenue limits of Jodiya Taluka. It is submitted that therefore, when respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies no longer continue in the revenue limits of Jodiya Taluka, they cannot be continued in the list of voters for constituency of Jodiya Taluka, as per bye-law No. 30(1)(a) (8). 4.3. It is further submitted by Shri Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner that the interpretation canvassed by the Election Officer that voters list was prepared showing situation as on 31.3.2013 and therefore, since the revenue limits is changed after 31.3.2013, same cannot be considered is clearly erroneous. It is submitted that once the society ceases to be in the revenue limits of a particular Taluka, they would automatically cease to be having voting rights in the election of the federal society. It is submitted that therefore, the impugned decision overruling objection raised by the petitioner against inclusion of the respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies in the voter's list of Jodiya Taluka Constituency deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.4. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application. 5.0. Present petition is opposed by Shri Dhavan Jaiswal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Election Officer. It is vehemently submitted that the impugned decision of the Election Officer rejecting/overruling the objections raised by the petitioner against inclusion of the respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies in the list of voters of Jodiya constituency is absolutely just and proper and in consonance with the Rules 1982. 5.1. It is further submitted that as such election of the members of the Managing Committee of the Bank was due on 2.7.2013, as the term of the elected body of the managing committee of the bank expired on 2.7.2013. 5.1. It is further submitted that as such election of the members of the Managing Committee of the Bank was due on 2.7.2013, as the term of the elected body of the managing committee of the bank expired on 2.7.2013. It is submitted that as per Rule 4, list of voters is required to be prepared for the year in which general election is due to be held and the persons who are members as on the date of drawing up accounts of the year immediately preceding the year, in which, such election is due, are required to be included in the list. It is submitted that therefore, when the election was due in the year 2013 and therefore, only those members as on the date of drawing up the accounts of the year immediately preceding the year i.e. in the present case also on 31.3.2013 are required to be included in the list of voter's. It is submitted that therefore, when respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies were members of the bank as on 31.3.2013 and villages in which respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies are operating where in Jamanagar District and Jodiya Taluka as on 31.3.2013, their names are required to be included in the provisional list of voters. It is submitted that therefore, no error has been committed by the Election Officer in overruling the objections raised by the petitioner. Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP, has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (1993) 4 SCC 216 . Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP has also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhavnagar District Cooperative Bank Limited & Ors v. State of Gujarat and Ors reported in 2006(2) GLH 545 . It is submitted that after considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union (supra) and considering Rule 4 of Rules 1982, it is observed and held that only those persons who are members of the specified society on the date of drawing up the accounts of the year immediately preceding the year, in which, election is due, are entitled to be included in the provisional list/voters list. 5.2. 5.2. Now, so far as reliance placed by the decision of the of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union (supra) by Shri Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP that as such considering the facts of the case on hand, the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. It is submitted that as such before the Division Bench in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union (supra) there was no such controversy/issue involved/raised which is involved/raised in the present petition i.e. interpretation of Rule 4 of the Rules 1982. 5.3. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decision, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 6.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Bank is a specified society under Section 74(C) of the Act and the Election of the members of the Managing Committee of the said Bank is required to be held and conducted as per Chapter XI A of the Act r/w Rules 1982. It is required to be noted that as such the term of elected body of the Managing Committee of the Bank had expired on 2.7.2013. Therefore, the election of the Managing Committee of the Bank was required to be held in the month June/July 2013. However, for number of reasons the election was not held and ultimately the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the Bank is required to be held pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 5.12.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 7185 of 2014. Therefore, the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the Bank was as such due in the month of June/July 2013. Before the election is held, the Election Officer is required to prepare the provisional list of voters. Rule 4 of Rules 1982 provides for preparation of provisional list of voters, which reads as under: "4. Provisional list of voters: - (1) A provisional list of voters shall be prepared in Gujarati by every society for the year in which general election is due to be held. Rule 4 of Rules 1982 provides for preparation of provisional list of voters, which reads as under: "4. Provisional list of voters: - (1) A provisional list of voters shall be prepared in Gujarati by every society for the year in which general election is due to be held. Persons who are members as on the date of drawing up the accounts 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 constituency wise as laid down in the byelaws. (2) Four copies of the authenticated provisional lists of voters shall be sent by every society to the Collector, through the District Registrar so as to reach the Collector within 15 days from the date of drawing up the accounts of the year in which general election is due. Copies of the said list shall be displayed on the notice board of the society, the District Registrar concerned and the Collector within 20 days, from the date of drawing up the accounts for inviting claims and objections. (3) Simultaneously with sending of provisional list of voters under sub-clause(2) even society shall send in writing to the Collector a list of members who are disqualified to vote as per the provisions of the Act, Rules or its Bye- laws and shall inform to the member who has been shown disqualified in the said list in writing, pointing out such disqualification incurred by him. The said list shall be treated as objection under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6. (4) If any society fails to send copies of the provisional list of voters to the Collector through the District Registrar concerned within 15 days from the date of drawing up the accounts, the Collector shall himself or through any person authorised by him in this behalf prepare a provisional list of voters and the expenditure incurred therefore shall be recovered from the society as arrears of land revenue. (5) In the event of the Collector taking action under sub-rule(4) he shall also cause copies of the provisional list of voters to be displayed on his notice board and on the notice board of the District Registrar concerned and the society within 23 days from the date of drawing up the accounts, for inviting claims and objections." 7.0. (5) In the event of the Collector taking action under sub-rule(4) he shall also cause copies of the provisional list of voters to be displayed on his notice board and on the notice board of the District Registrar concerned and the society within 23 days from the date of drawing up the accounts, for inviting claims and objections." 7.0. Thus, the provisional list of voter's shall be prepared by every society for the year in which the general election is due to be held. It also further provides that persons who are members as on the date of drawing of accounts of the year immediately preceding year in which, such election is due, shall be included in the provisional list of voters. It also further provides that if different constituencies are provided in the bye-laws, the names of the voters shall be arranged constituency wise as laid down in the bye-laws. It is not in dispute that respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies were members of the Bank as on 31.3.2013. It is also not in dispute that the villages in which the respondent nos. 5 to 15 are operating were as such in the Jodiya Taluka and Jamnagar District as on 31.3.2013. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that election of the member of the Managing Committee of the Bank was due in the month of June/July 2013. Therefore, considering the Rule 4 of the Rules 1982, all persons who were members as on the date of drawing up accounts of the year immediately preceding the year, in which, such election is due i.e. in the present case as on 31.3.2013 shall be included in the provisional list of voters. Therefore, respondent nos. 5 to 15 are required to be included in the provisional list of voters, considering Rule 4(1) of the Rules, 1982. 8.0. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as subsequently and on and from 15.8.2013 the villages, in which, respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies are operating are included in the revenue limits of newly constituted Morbi District and Morbi Taluka and they are no longer in the revenue limits of Jodiya Taluka and Jamnagar District, they cannot participate in the election of bank and more particularly, Jodiya Taluka Constituency. 5 to 15 societies are operating are included in the revenue limits of newly constituted Morbi District and Morbi Taluka and they are no longer in the revenue limits of Jodiya Taluka and Jamnagar District, they cannot participate in the election of bank and more particularly, Jodiya Taluka Constituency. In support of his above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union (supra). However, considering the facts of the case in Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union (supra) and the controversy/issue involved before the Division Bench in the said case, we are of the opinion that the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or would be of any assistance to the petitioner. On considering the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union (supra) in detail, it appears that no such issue/controversy raised in the present Special Civil Application was before the Division Bench. In the case before the Division Bench admittedly the villages in which, the members were operating, were in within the particular Taluka as on the date of drawing up the accounts of the year immediately preceding the year, in which, such election was due. In the case before the Division Bench, in the year 1997, the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat bifurcated certain Districts and Talukas by creating new Districts and new Talukas. Under the said bifurcation, the State Government created a new District Patan carving out some village from Mehsana District. The State Government also excluded some of the villages forming part of Siddhpur Revenue Taluka and included them in a newly formed Unjha Taluka. As a result of this bifurcation for creation of new District and Talukas, 27 primary societies affiliated to Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Society, do fall within the territorial area of newly formed Unjha Taluka. The State Government also excluded some of the villages forming part of Siddhpur Revenue Taluka and included them in a newly formed Unjha Taluka. As a result of this bifurcation for creation of new District and Talukas, 27 primary societies affiliated to Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Society, do fall within the territorial area of newly formed Unjha Taluka. That the Election Officer excluded 27 member Cooperative Societies out of total 65 member Cooperative Societies which were affiliated to Siddhpur Taluka Specified Cooperative Society, as District Registrar was of the opinion that 7 primary Cooperative Societies, which were affiliated to Siddhpur Federal Specified Cooperative Society being no longer within the territorial area of Patan Taluka and being now falling in Unjha Taluka, cannot be included in the voters list of Siddhpur Taluka which formed part of new Patan District. The aforesaid was challenged before the Division Bench by submitting that as the villages in which the aforesaid societies were operated where in the respective Talukas at the time of bye-law and they continued to be the members of the specified society, irrespective of change in the taluka, they had right to participate in the election to the federal society. The aforesaid came to be negatived by the Division Bench. However, as observed herein above, as on the date of drawing up accounts of the year immediately preceding the year, those members were not in the particular Taluka. Therefore, no such controversy arising in the present Special Civil Application was before the Division Bench. 9.0. In the case of Natural Resources Allocation In RE, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 reported in (2012) 10 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the "law declared" has to be construed as a principle of law that emanates from a judgment, or an interpretation of a law or judgment by the Supreme Court, upon which, the case is decided. It is further observed that the " law declared" is the principle culled out on the reading of a judgment as a whole in light of the questions raised, upon which the case is decided. It is further observed that in other words, the "law declared" in a judgment, which is binding upon courts, is the ratio decidendi of the judgment. It is further observed that in other words, the "law declared" in a judgment, which is binding upon courts, is the ratio decidendi of the judgment. It is further observed that essence of a decision and the principle upon which the case is decided which has to be ascertained in relation to the subject matter of the decision. In para 70 to 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 70. Each case entails a different set of facts and a decision is a precedent on its own facts; not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgment can be ascribed precedental value. The essence of a decision that binds the parties to the case is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and cull out from it, the ratio decidendi. In the matter of applying precedents, the erudite Justice Benjamin Cardozo in "The Nature of a Judicial Process", had said that "if the judge is to pronounce it wisely, some principles of selection there must be to guide him along all potential judgments that compete for recognition" and "almost invariably his first step is to examine and compare them;" "it is a process of search, comparison and little more" and ought not to be akin to matching "the colors of the case at hand against the colors of many sample cases" because in that case "the man who had the best card index of the cases would also be the wisest judge". Warning against comparing precedents with matching colours of one case with another, he summarised the process, in case the colours don't match, in the following wise words:- "It is when the colors do not match, when the references in the index fail, when there is no decisive precedent, that the serious business of the judge begins. He must then fashion law for the litigants before him. In fashioning it for them, he will be fashioning it for others. The classic statement is Bacon's: "For many times, the things deduced to judgment may be meum and tuum, when the reason and consequence thereof may trench to point of estate. The sentence of today will make the right and wrong of tomorrow." 71. With reference to the precedential value of decisions, in State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md. The classic statement is Bacon's: "For many times, the things deduced to judgment may be meum and tuum, when the reason and consequence thereof may trench to point of estate. The sentence of today will make the right and wrong of tomorrow." 71. With reference to the precedential value of decisions, in State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md. Illiyas this Court observed: 12"...According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates: (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment..." 72. Recently, in Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda & Anr., this Court has observed as follows: "...Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes." 73. It is also important to read a judgment as a whole keeping in mind that it is not an abstract academic discourse with universal applicability, but heavily grounded in the facts and circumstances of the case. Every part of a judgment is intricately linked to others constituting a larger whole and thus, must be read keeping the logical thread intact. In this regard, in Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., the Court made the following observations: "The ratio decidendi of a judgment has to be found out only on reading the entire judgment. In this regard, in Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., the Court made the following observations: "The ratio decidendi of a judgment has to be found out only on reading the entire judgment. In fact, the ratio of the judgment is what is set out in the judgment itself. The answer to the question would necessarily have to be read in the context of what is set out in the judgment and not in isolation. In case of any doubt as regards any observations, reasons and principles, the other part of the judgment has to be looked into. By reading a line here and there from the judgment, one cannot find out the entire ratio decidendi of the judgment." 10. In the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and Another v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another reported (2002) 3 SCC 496 , in para 19 to 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of courts are not to be construed asstatutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statues, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton ( 1951 AC 737 at P. 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge." 20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech..is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge." 20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech..is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537 Lord Morris said: "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case." 21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 22. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicks: "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." xxx xxx xxx "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." 11. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and Another (supra) and considering the pari materia Rule i.e. Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971, in para 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: "7. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and Another (supra) and considering the pari materia Rule i.e. Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971, in para 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: "7. We have already noted that under Rule 4 provisional list of voters shall be prepared by every society "in the year in which general election is due to be held". It is not due under law as contended for the Society. What is the meaning of the above quoted phrase is to be gathered from the statutory operation of the law. The term of the Managing Committee was to expire on December 3, 1991. Under the Act the election to the managing committee of the society shall be held under Section 73G before the expiry of the term in accordance with the provision in chapter 11A of the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws of the society. The year in which the general election due is, therefore, the year 1991. If the elections were not conducted before its expiry, by operation of Sub-section 2B of Section 73G, the members of the existing committee should cease to hold office on its expiry of extended term as the case may be and should be deemed to have vacated their offices. By operation of Sub-section (3) of Section 73G, the general body of the members of the society should elect the members of the managing committee. Therefore, before the expiry of the term of the committee the general election to the Managing Committee is due. Black's Law Dictionary, sixth edition at. p.500, meaning of the words 'due date' has been stated thus: "In general, the particular day on or before which something must be done to comply with law of contractual obligation". When Section 73G, provisions in Chapter XIA and the bye-laws read with Rule 4 envisage that the election to the managing committee should be conducted before the expiry of the term, the Society has been enjoined under Rule 4(1) to prepare the provisional voters list of the members as on June 30th of the year "immediately preceding the year" in which such general election is due to be held and submit the same to the Dist. Collector. Collector. The Legislature, thereby intended that despite the existence of the members on the admission register of the society, only those members who were admitted and valid as members on or before 30th June of the year immediately preceding the year in which such general election is due alone are eligible to exercise the franchise and to be included in the provisional list. Thereafter on publication in the Notice Board under Rule 6(1) and considering the objections, suggestions or improvements if any made, the Collector is enjoined to finalise the list under Rule 7 and have it published as "final list of voters". The proviso would operate only in case the preparation of the provisional list of voters falls due after the expiry of the period of six months from the 30th June, then only, after consultation with the designated officer, the Collector, by an order, may change the date of 30th June and fix a subsequent date as revised date to submit the provisional list of voters. In this case the proviso has no application for the reason that the provisional list had already been approved and published by the Collector as per the law on December 17, 1991. It was not challenged. Therefore, the year in which the general election to the society is due is the date as per the operation of law i.e. 1991 but not due after the expiry of the period as postponed by the State Govt. Obviously, for that reason the Govt. also had issued instructions on September 28, 1992 that in case the provisional list was approved and the final list was published prior to the postponement of the election, the election should he conducted in accordance with the final list published under Rule 7 of the Rules". 12. Even, there is a direct decision of the Division Bench of this Court on the point in the case of Bhavnagar District Cooperative Bank Limited and Ors (supra). After considering the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules 1982, in the aforesaid decisions, it is specifically observed and held that right to vote will have to be determined on the basis of provisions of Rule. After considering the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules 1982, in the aforesaid decisions, it is specifically observed and held that right to vote will have to be determined on the basis of provisions of Rule. It is further held that only those persons who are members of the specified society on the date of drawing up the accounts of the year immediately preceding the year, in which, such election is due, are entitled to be included in the provisional list. In the case before the Division Bench the facts were reversed. In the case before the Division Bench, the villages in which, the concerned societies were operating, were included in the taluka subsequent to the date of drawing up the accounts of the year immediately preceding the year, in which, such election was due and it was contended on their behalf that they have right to participate in the election, as on the date of election they were within the taluka and the same came to be negatived by the Division Bench by observing in para 8 to 11 as under: "8. In Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union & Ors. (supra), under the bifurcation made by the Revenue Department of the State Government, a new District Patan was created carving out some villages from Mehsana District. The State Government also excluded some of the villages forming part of Siddhpur Revenue Taluka and included them in newly formed Unjha Taluka. As a result of this bifurcation, 27 primary societies affiliated to Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Society fell within the territorial area of Unjha Taluka. The Election Officer-cum-Prant Officer of Patan Taluka issued two election programmes for completing the process of election separately for Siddhpur and Patan Taluka Cooperative Sale & Purchase Union Limited. The election programme commenced on December 21, 2001 in the case of Siddhpur and on December 11, 2001 in the case of Patan Taluka Cooperative Unions with the preparation of provisional Voters' Lists. The election was over with declaration of result on January 21, 2002 for Patan Cooperative Union and was to end on February 4, 2002 for Siddhpur Cooperative Union. The election was over with declaration of result on January 21, 2002 for Patan Cooperative Union and was to end on February 4, 2002 for Siddhpur Cooperative Union. The Taluka Sale and Purchase Cooperative Unions at Siddhpur and Patan are specified cooperative societies under Section 74C of the Act and the elections to these cooperative societies were required to be held in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 145A to 145Y under Chapter XIA of the Act and the Rules. The action taken by the Election Officer in excluding from the Voters' List 27 member cooperative societies out of total 65 member cooperative societies, which were affiliated to the Siddhpur Taluka Specified Cooperative Society, was challenged before the High Court in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that merely on change of revenue areas of Patan and Siddhpur Talukas, the membership of the Federal Societies in those Talukas would not change unless the societies themselves amend their bye-laws under Section 13 of the Act and, therefore, 27 member cooperative societies, which were affiliated to Siddhpur Taluka Specified Cooperative Society could not have been excluded from the Voters' List. It was maintained before the Division Bench that 'Siddhpur Taluka' as used in the bye-laws should mean 'Siddhpur Taluka' as it existed prior to the year 1997, i.e. before areas of Taluka were changed and some parts of the Village with primary societies therein were excluded and, therefore, the names of the societies could not have been excluded from the Voters' List by the Election Officer. After surveying the scheme of the Act and the Rules, the Division Bench of this High Court has held in paragraphs 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the reported decision as under: "15. Having thus briefly surveyed the scheme of the Act on the provisions of the Act and the Rules mentioned above, what we discover is that the structure of the cooperative societies from State level down to Taluka level is based on the revenue areas. A District and Taluka cooperative society is required to have its membership within the District and Taluka. Elections to societies, federal or otherwise, are required to be conducted by the District Collector on the basis of the revenue areas of Taluka or District concerned. A District and Taluka cooperative society is required to have its membership within the District and Taluka. Elections to societies, federal or otherwise, are required to be conducted by the District Collector on the basis of the revenue areas of Taluka or District concerned. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that revenue area of Taluka or District has no relationship with the holding of elections to cooperative society of District or Taluka level. It is true that in the Gujarat Act, there are no parallel provisions as to be found in Section 18C of the Maharashtra Act to take care of the change in structure of cooperative societies in the event of change of area of Taluka or District. But for that reason alone, it cannot be held that under the Gujarat Act and the Rules framed thereunder, regardless of the change of the area of Taluka or District and without amending its bye-laws, a cooperative society of primary level can send its members for vote or election to a federal society at Taluka level when such societies do not fall within the revenue area of that Taluka. In the absence of a provision analogous to Section 18C of the Maharashtra Act, to enable its members to exercise right of vote and contest from primary societies to federal society, it is incumbent on the society to amend its bye-laws to restrict its election to the area of Taluka or District in accordance with Section 13 of the Act. The Registrar can also invoke its authority for effecting corresponding change in the bye-laws under Section 14 of the Act to restrict election to members within the Taluka and District. There is great force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the right of a member to vote or contest as member of a primary society for election to federal society is to be regulated by the concerned bye-laws of the federal society and if the byelaws restrict the membership to affiliated societies which fall within the Taluka, societies which fall outside the Taluka cannot claim right of vote and contest through their members or delegates. In this respect bye-law no.7(1) of Siddhpur Taluka Federal Cooperative Society and Patan Taluka Federal Cooperative Society are required to be seen, the copies of which were passed on to us in the course of hearing. Bye-law No. 7(1) in both the Taluka level federal societies at Patan and Siddhpur prescribe eligibility qualification for a member to be an individual or society existing and operating within the Taluka concerned. If that is the position of the bye-law, any member society or individual, who is not within the Taluka, merely by continuance of its membership on the register with primary society can claim no right to participate in election to the federal societies. 17. After examining the scheme of the Act and the relevant bye-laws, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners, although attractive, is not acceptable. As we have stated above, the qualification, constitution and structure of the societies from State level down to Taluka level are based on the territorial revenue areas of District and Taluka. The Collector who is the Revenue Head of the District is empowered to hold the elections and his jurisdiction is limited to the District. Similarly, the Officers and Authorities on whom powers are conferred by the Collector for conducting elections have also territorial jurisdiction restricted to Talukas in which they are exercising the powers on behalf of the Collector. It is rightly pointed out on behalf of the respondents that if 27 primary cooperative societies, which no longer form part of Siddhpur Taluka and may seek affiliation to Unjha Taluka Federal Society, are allowed to vote and contest for election to Siddhpur Taluka, an imbalance would be created, adversely affecting the Federal Societies now falling in Unjha Taluka. 18. Keeping in view the envisaged structure of the Federal Societies in the Act, elections to them are required to be held only on the basis of existing revenue areas. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioners that merely by change of territorial area of Talukas, membership of primary societies or federal society would not automatically cease under any provision of the Act. It is also submitted that the area of operation and business activities of a federal society has no direct connection with the revenue areas of a Taluka or District. It is also submitted that the area of operation and business activities of a federal society has no direct connection with the revenue areas of a Taluka or District. In this respect, it is further contended that rights of individuals and societies as members of primary and federal societies cannot be adversely affected contrary to their rights provided in the bye-laws only because of change of territorial area of the Talukas under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 19. On the last argument, we may clarify that a member validly admitted to a primary or federal society has several rights qua member. By virtue of membership or as a share holder, he has a right to get advantage of his membership in the trade and business of the society. He has also other rights as member to have business transactions with the society. But in our considered opinion, his rights in society qua member to vote and contest are dependent upon his being a member (individual or society) residing or having its operations within a particular territorial jurisdiction of Revenue Taluka. If a society as a member or an individual as member ceases to belong to a Revenue Taluka, they cannot claim right to vote or contest as member of that society, in election of Federal Society of that Taluka. The bye-law No. 7(1) of Taluka Federal Society have to be applied on the situation obtaining on the date of election. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted that the word "Siddhpur Taluka" mentioned therein should be read to mean "Siddhpur Taluka" as it existed on the date of framing of bye-law No. 7(1) and prior to delimitation of Taluka in the year 1997. In our opinion, such a construction and interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the bye-laws would be destructive of the structure of cooperative societies based on revenue areas from apex down to district and taluka levels. Such interpretation will also adversely affect the elections to the federal society of other Talukas like Unjha within whose territorial area now the 27 cooperative societies fall. Such interpretation will also adversely affect the elections to the federal society of other Talukas like Unjha within whose territorial area now the 27 cooperative societies fall. In the absence of an analogous provision as to be found in Maharashtra Act, on delimitation or change of area of Revenue Talukas, it is incumbent on the concerned societies to amend their bye-laws or for the Registrar to take suitable corrective or coercive action under Section 14." 9. A perusal of the above referred to observations made by the Division Bench of this Court makes it evident that the structure of the cooperative societies from State level down to Taluka level is based on the revenue areas. A District and Taluka Cooperative Society is required to have its membership within the District & Taluka. The elections to the societies, federal or otherwise, are required to be conducted by the District Collector on the basis of the revenue areas of Taluka or District concerned. While interpreting the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912, the Supreme Court in Apex Cooperative Bank of Urban Bank of Maharashtra and Goa Limited v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited, (2003) 11 SCC 66 , has held that: }Sin order to give societies a corporate existence without resort to the Companies Act, the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 was enacted. Sections 4 and 6 thereof show that the Act essentially dealt with societies whose members were residing in the same town or village or group of villages or whose members were from the same tribe, class, caste or occupation. The object of the society had to be the promotion of interest of its members. This shows that the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 was enacted for local societies. The above quoted principles would be applicable to the provisions of Section 6 of the Act which, inter alia, provide that no society with unlimited liability shall be registered unless all the persons forming the society reside in the same town or village or in the same group of villages. Therefore, it is clear that the structure of cooperative societies from the State level to Taluka level is based on the revenue areas. Therefore, it is clear that the structure of cooperative societies from the State level to Taluka level is based on the revenue areas. Under the circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the revenue areas of Taluka and District have no relationships with the holding of elections to cooperative society of District or Taluka level. Rule 4 of the Rules provides preparation of provisional list constituency wise as provided in the bye-laws of the societies. It is not possible for this Court to hold that regardless of the change of the area of Taluka or District and without amending its bye-laws, a cooperative society of primary level can send its members for vote or election to a federal society at Taluka Level when such societies do not fall within the revenue area of that Taluka. A member validly admitted to a primary or federal society has several right qua member. By virtue of membership or as a shareholder, he has a right to get advantage of his membership in the trade and business of the society. He has also other rights as member to have business transactions with the society. However, his rights in society qua member to vote and contest are dependent upon his being a member (individual or society) residing or having its operations within a particular territorial jurisdiction of Revenue Taluka. If a society as a member or an individual as a member ceases to belong to a Revenue Taluka, it/he cannot claim right to vote or contest as member of that society in election of Federal Society of that Taluka. 10. The contention that in view of the provisions of Section 28(3) of the Act, the names of the societies situate within Savarkundla Revenue Talukla could not have been excluded, has no merits. The provisions of Section 28 subsection (3) of the Act will have to be read subject to the provisions of the Rules. Section 28(3) of the Act provides that a society which has invested any part of its funds in the shares of another society, may appoint one of its members to vote on its behalf in the affairs of that society, and accordingly such member shall have the right to vote on behalf of the first society. Section 28(3) of the Act provides that a society which has invested any part of its funds in the shares of another society, may appoint one of its members to vote on its behalf in the affairs of that society, and accordingly such member shall have the right to vote on behalf of the first society. However, there is no manner of doubt that the right to vote will have to be determined on the basis of the provisions of the Rules and as the primary cooperative societies situate within Savarkundla Revenue Taluka were not the members of the Specified Society as on March 31, 2005 in terms of Rule 4(1) of the Rules, they have no right to vote at the elections to the committees of the Specified Society. 11. The plea that no cessation of the membership of the primary cooperative societies situate within Savarkundla Revenue Taluka has taken place in terms of Section 26 of the Act and, therefore, those societies could not have been prevented from exercising voting powers as conferred on them by Section 28 of the Act, also cannot be accepted. It is nobody's case nor the Election Officer has held that because primary cooperative societies situate within Savarkundla Revenue Taluka are not entitled to vote in the election to the Managing Committee of the Specified Society, they have ceased to be members of the Specified Society. As averred by the petitioners in the petitions, the primary societies situate within Savarkundla Revenue Taluka which are members of the specified society have continued to exercise other rights available to them as members and enjoyed the benefits. However, right to vote at the election to the Managing Committee of the specified society is not governed by contract between the specified society and its members, but is governed by statutory Rules of 1982 and as provided in Rule 4(1) of the Rules, only those persons who are members of the specified society on the date of drawing up the accounts of the year immediately preceding the year in which election is due, are entitled to be included in the provisional list. The record shows that the petitioner No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 5753 of 2006, i.e. Bhavnagar District Cooperative Bank Limited, itself had implemented the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase & Sales Union & Ors. The record shows that the petitioner No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 5753 of 2006, i.e. Bhavnagar District Cooperative Bank Limited, itself had implemented the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase & Sales Union & Ors. (supra), and, therefore, the amendment of the bye-laws was moved to enable the cooperative societies situate within Savarkundla Revenue Taluka to exercise the right of voting at the election to the committee of the specified society. It is not the case of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 5753 of 2006, i.e. Bhavnagar District Cooperative Bank Limited, that the amendment made of the bye-laws pursuant to the decision rendered in Siddhpur Taluka Cooperative Purchase & Sales Union & Ors. (supra), was illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Act or misconceived nor the record shows that any application was made by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 5753 of 2006 to any authority to cancel the amendment made of the bye-laws, which were approved in the General Meeting of the Specified Society held on October 26, 2005 nor the record shows that another amendment of the bye-laws was moved by the Specified Society to restore the position prevailing prior to the resolution dated October 26, 2005 passed in its general meeting of the Board after the registration of the amendment of the bye-laws by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. It is well settled proposition of law that the bye-laws framed by a cooperative society as amended from time to time, are binding on the society and its members and neither the society nor its members can be permitted to act contrary to the bye-laws adopted by the society. In this case, the bye-laws of the Specified Society as amended by it in its General Board Meeting dated October 26, 2005 are in force as on today and the reliefs claimed by the specified society and its members, which are contrary to the bye-laws, cannot be granted. The conduct of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 5753 of 2006 is such, which dis-entitles them from claiming the reliefs prayed for in the petition. On bifurcation of Districts and Talukas, the cooperative societies situate within Taluka cease to be members having rights to vote or contest as member of that society in election of the Specified Society. The conduct of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 5753 of 2006 is such, which dis-entitles them from claiming the reliefs prayed for in the petition. On bifurcation of Districts and Talukas, the cooperative societies situate within Taluka cease to be members having rights to vote or contest as member of that society in election of the Specified Society. Therefore, the bye-laws were amended by the Specified Society, which came into force with effect from October 26, 2005. The primary cooperative societies situate in Savarkundla Revenue Taluka were not the members of Bhavnagar District Cooperative Bank Limited, which is a Federal Society for the purpose of claiming right to vote or contest as member of that society as on March 31, 2005 and, therefore, the decision taken by the Election Officer to exclude their names from the Voters' List, cannot be regarded as illegal so as to warrant interference of this Court in the instant petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution." 13. Therefore, when it is held that right to vote will have to be on basis of provision of Rules 1982 and as provided in Rule 4(1) of the Rules, only those persons who are members of the specified society on the date of drawing up accounts of the year immediately preceding the year, in which, election is due are entitled to included in the provisional list, as the villages in which, respondent nos. 5 to 15 are operating were as such in the Jodiya Taluka as on 31.3.2013 and in Jamnagar District as on 31.3.2013 and they were members of the concerned Bank as on 31.3.2013, considering Rule 4(1) of the Rules, no error has been committed by the Election Officer in including names of respondent nos. 5 to 15 in the provisional list of voters of Jodiya Taluka Constituency. The contention on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid would be contrary to bye-law no.30(1)(a)(8) is concerned, it is required to be noted that bye law cannot overrule the statutory rules. 5 to 15 in the provisional list of voters of Jodiya Taluka Constituency. The contention on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid would be contrary to bye-law no.30(1)(a)(8) is concerned, it is required to be noted that bye law cannot overrule the statutory rules. In the aforesaid decision in the case of Bhavnagar District Cooperative Bank Limited and Ors (supra), the Division Bench has specifically observed that right to vote at the election to the Managing Committee of the specified society is not governed by contract between the specified society and its members, but is governed by statutory Rules of 1982 and as provided in Rule 4(1) of the Rules. 14. Similarly the contention on behalf of the petitioner that position as on the date of election is required to be considered, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as per Rule 4(1) of the Rules 1982, provisional list of voters shall be prepared by every societies, for the year in which, the general election is due to be held and the persons who are members as on the date of drawing up the accounts of the year immediately preceding the year, in which, such election is due, shall be included in the provisional list of voters. It does not provide that the persons who are members as on the date of drawing accounts up of the year immediately preceding the year, in which, such election is held, shall be included in the provisional list of voters. Therefore, if the contention on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, in that case, it will be rewriting Rule 4, which is not permissible. 15. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the Election Officer in overruling/rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner against the inclusion of the respondent nos. 5 to 15 societies in the provisional list of voters of Jodiya Taluka Constituency for the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the Bank, which as such was due, in the month of June/July 2013. Thus, the decision of the Election Officer in not including the names of the petitioner societies in the provisional list of voters is absolutely just and proper and in consonance with the provision of Rules 1982, more particularly, Rule 4. 16. In view of the above, present Special Civil Application fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 16. In view of the above, present Special Civil Application fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No cost. Application dismissed.