JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard both sides for final disposal. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order made by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ahmednagar who is also District Cooperative Societies Election Authority. This order is in respect of the provisional list prepared for elections of Respondent No.3–Co-operative Society and the claim of the petitioners that they are members of the society and their names need to be included in final voters list is rejected by the authority. 3. During the arguments, the learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 22, 24, 30, 35, 36, 56 and 68 are not pressing the petition and the petition may be decided in respect of remaining petitioners. 4. It is not disputed that the present petitioners who are remaining after deletion of the aforesaid petitioners were members of the society and they had voted in the previous election of the respondent–Society. Due to the amendment made in the year 2013 to Co-operative Societies Act, the requisite share capital subscription of each member was increased. The names of these petitioners are deleted by the society from membership register and they were not included in provisional voters list. It is the case of the petitioners that they had deposited the money in respect of the said share capital before declaration of the program and consideration of the objection but this record is not considered by the authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even in these circumstances in view of the provisions of law, names of the petitioners could not have been deleted and they are entitled to vote in the present election as this is the first election which is being held after the aforesaid amendment. The learned Counsel also submitted that the procedure which is laid down for deletion of the names in the amendment itself was not followed and so the deletion is illegal and the petitioners need to be allowed to vote in this election. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court has already decided the point involved in the present matter in Writ Petition Nos. 6880 of 2016 with 7084 of 2016 and so the present petition needs to be allowed. The relevant provision is Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and it reads as under: "26. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court has already decided the point involved in the present matter in Writ Petition Nos. 6880 of 2016 with 7084 of 2016 and so the present petition needs to be allowed. The relevant provision is Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and it reads as under: "26. Rights and duties of members (1) A member shall be entitled to exercise such rights as provided in the Act, rules and bye-laws: Provided that, no member shall exercise the rights until he has made such payment to the society in respect of membership, or acquired such interest in the society, as may be prescribed and specified under the byelaws of the society, from time to time. Provided further that, in case of increase in minimum contribution of member in share capital to exercise right of membership, the society shall give a due notice of demand to the members and give reasonable period to comply with.” 6. The aforesaid provision shows that if there is increase in minimum contribution of member in share capital, it was necessary for the society to give notice of demand to the members and give reasonable period to comply with it. The learned Counsel for society submitted that notice was pasted in the office of the society and many members had paid the necessary amount but the present petitioners did not make the payment and so they cannot question the deletion of their names. The learned Counsel submitted that due to the proviso, it is not possible to allow the petitioners to vote in the election. 7. This Court holds that this submission is not at all acceptable. Firstly notice to each member ought to have been given and further reasonable period ought to have been given by the society to the members to make the payment. Pasting of notice in society office is not sufficient in view of the requirement of the second proviso. The second proviso controls the first proviso. In politics such tactics are played and so the proviso needs to be interpreted in favour of the members and not in favour of the ruling party. Due to these circumstances, this Court holds that the order of the authority cannot sustain in law. In the result, petition is allowed in respect of all the petitioners except the Petitioner Nos. In politics such tactics are played and so the proviso needs to be interpreted in favour of the members and not in favour of the ruling party. Due to these circumstances, this Court holds that the order of the authority cannot sustain in law. In the result, petition is allowed in respect of all the petitioners except the Petitioner Nos. 22, 24, 30, 35, 36, 56 and 68.