JUDGMENT : 1. In these four Writ Petitions filed by the respective petitioners, being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent No.4/Election Officer of Ashok Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, in rejecting their nomination papers for being elected to the Managing Committee of respondent No.5/Ashok Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, they have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing and setting aside the impugned order. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.3/District Cooperative Election Officer and Regional Joint Director of Sugar, Ahmednagar, rejecting the respective appeals filed by them by invoking Section 152-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 2. All the four Writ Petitions raise a similar challenge and therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. In favour of the petitioners, I have heard Shri Ajit Kale, the learned s, the respective petitioners have supplied the sugarcane to the Sugar Factory in the following advocate and learned AGP Shri S.G. Sangle for respondent No.1/State. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are represented by the learned advocate Shri S.K. Kadam, whereas, respondent No.5 is represented by the learned advocate Shri R.R. Karpe. 4. Considering the exigency in the Writ Petitions, since the election programme for electing the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5 Sugar Factory is in progress, the respective counsel have advanced their submissions with an understanding that the petitions shall be heard finally at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties. 5. All the petitioners are the agriculturists by profession and are members of the respondent No.5/Sugar Factory. The names of the petitioners are included in the voters list prepared by the Election Officer for the purpose of elections of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5/Sugar Factory. The election for the term 2021-2022 to 2025-2026 came to be declared by the election programme published on 09.12.2021. As per the election programme, the election to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5/Sugar Factory is scheduled on 16.01.2022 and the result of which, is to be declared on 17.01.2022. The date for filing of the nomination forms was scheduled between 13.12.2021 to 17.12.2021 and 20.12.2021 was the date scheduled for scrutiny of the nomination forms. As per the election programme, the election to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5/Sugar Factory is scheduled on 16.01.2022 and the result of which, is to be declared on 17.01.2022. The date for filing of the nomination forms was scheduled between 13.12.2021 to 17.12.2021 and 20.12.2021 was the date scheduled for scrutiny of the nomination forms. The date for publication of the valid nomination forms was scheduled as 21.12.2021 and from 21.12.2021 to 04.01.2022 is the period prescribed for withdrawal of the nomination papers. 05.01.2022 is the date scheduled for publication of the list of validly nominated candidates and allocation of symbols. 6. In the backdrop of the election programme so published, the petitioners, who were eligible to contest the elections, submitted their nomination papers to the respondent No.4/Election Officer. The petitioners submitted the nomination forms from open category and it is specifically pleaded by them that they had purchased the standard bye-laws prepared by the competent authority from the Election Officer by submitting necessary amount and proceeded to fill in the nomination forms in terms of the bye-laws governing the election to the respondent No.5/Sugar Factory. 7. From the bye-laws, it could be discerned by the petitioners that the number of directors to be elected is 21 and they were classified into six categories, the largest one being constituency No.1 i.e. constituency of the sugarcane growers from which 15 directors are to be elected. From producer/non-producer cooperative society and marketing society i.e. constituency No.2, one director is to be elected. From the category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes i.e. constituency No.3, one director is to be elected, further category of VJNT and Special Backward Class category and OBC category, one director each to be elected. Two women directors are to be elected to the Managing Committee. 8. All the petitioners submitted their nomination forms from the open category and on scrutiny of their nomination, the Election Officer rejected the same by citing the reason to the effect that in terms of bye-law No.28, the qualification prescribed vide bye-law No.26(1)(a), made it imperative for the person, to be elected to the post of the Director, to bring his sugarcane crop for crushing to the Sugar Factory, for at least three seasons, out of the five crushing seasons, preceding the year of election to be conducted for constituting the managing committee of the Sugar Factory. The proceedings before the Election Officer and the order passed by him are annexed at Exhibit D collectively to the petition. 9. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel Shri Kale is that the objection raised as regards the candidature of the petitioners relying upon bye-law No.26 was not available either with the Election Officer or with the present petitioners, who had obtained the certified copies of the bye-laws and therefore, the rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioners was on non existent ground. The learned counsel has invited my attention to the copy of the bye-laws obtained by the petitioner, which is placed on record at Exhibit C of the petition and the title indicates that they are amended bye-laws of the respondent No.5 Sugar Factory applicable with effect from 24.09.2014. By referring to the said bye-laws and by inviting my attention to bye-law No.28, which prescribed the qualification of the Director to be elected as per the bye-law No.26(1)(a), the qualifications are read over to me and the submission is, the qualification Nos.1 to 8 set out under the said clause, ended with a Note clarifying that the aforesaid qualifications are applicable only to the sugarcane grower constituency i.e. the members to be elected as per bye-law No.26(1)(a). The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is to the effect that the condition as stipulated, of supplying the sugarcane to the Sugar Factory for three crushing seasons out of five crushing seasons preceding the election, cannot be implemented in view of the peculiar facts, being that the last election of the managing committee was held for the term of 2015-2016 to 2019-2020 and on expiry of it's term, no extension was granted. However, in March, 2020, the Government was constrained to impose a lock-down nationwide and the election could not be held. This resulted in the State Government postponing the elections to various cooperative societies and as far as the respondent No.5, Sugar Factory is concerned, the term of the Managing Committee expired during the imposition of the lock-down in the State of Maharashtra and to be precise on 05.03.2020. This resulted in the State Government postponing the elections to various cooperative societies and as far as the respondent No.5, Sugar Factory is concerned, the term of the Managing Committee expired during the imposition of the lock-down in the State of Maharashtra and to be precise on 05.03.2020. Some of the members of the Sugar Factory filed a Writ Petition in this Court seeking appointment of an Administrator, since on expiry of the term of the managing committee, no extension was granted by the State Government though the elections to the managing committee came to be postponed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that convinced with the said argument, this Court, in Writ Petition No.5656/2020, was pleased to pass an interim order thereby, restraining the managing committee of respondent No.5/Sugar Factory from taking any major policy decision, since it's term was not extended. The said order was taken to the Apex Court and while this litigation was pending, the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 itself came to be amended by inserting appropriate provision extending the term of the Managing Committees, where it has expired. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel Shri Kale, that the covid-19 pandemic resulted in bringing amendments in Sections 26 and 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 thereby, the provisos were added extending the term of the managing committee upto 2020-2022. In the wake of the aforesaid amendments, the submission advanced is to the effect that the provision contained in bye-law No.26 is required to be read to mean that from 2015 to 2022, all crushing seasons are to be taken into consideration, while determining the eligibility in terms of the bye-law No.28, specifying the requirement of bringing the sugarcane to the Sugar Factory for crushing, and the nomination forms shall be validated by accounting the crushing season commencing from 2015 till the election, scheduled in the year 2022. Further, it is also submitted by the counsel that the State legislature itself was required to bring an ordinance giving right to the eligible members for voting in the elections of the cooperative societies, which elections are to be conducted on or before 31.03.2022. Further, it is also submitted by the counsel that the State legislature itself was required to bring an ordinance giving right to the eligible members for voting in the elections of the cooperative societies, which elections are to be conducted on or before 31.03.2022. It is argued that the amendments are brought to tackle with the covid- 19 outbreak and with a view that the members do not lose their right on account of disadvantageous position occurring due to outbreak of pandemic. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the statement of objects and reasons of the aforesaid amendment reflects that in view of the covid-19 pandemic, several societies are not able to conduct the annual general meeting within six months from the close of the financial year, consequentially, the members could not be continued as active members. Therefore, it was expedient to amend sub-section (1A) of Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 suitably so as to enable the member to remain as an active member and eligible to cast his vote in the elections of the cooperative society in the year 2021-2022. It is argued by Shri Kale that keeping in tune with the aforesaid scenario, bye-laws ought to have been construed to include the crushing seasons from 2015 to 2022 i.e. till the date of the election in 2022. 12. Shri Kadam, the learned counsel representing the State Election authority and it’s officers i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4 vehemently opposed the said argument and he would submit that the bye-laws govern the process of election to the Managing Committee of the Sugar Factory. Since the qualifications are prescribed by the bye-laws, on the date of election, the existing bye-laws shall govern the qualifications of the candidates desirous of contesting the election to the managing committee of the Sugar Factory. He would submit that the bye-laws, which are amended by following the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and as approved by the Regional Joint Director-cum-Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on 15.12.2015, reiterated the condition of supplying the sugarcane to the sugar factory for at least three crushing seasons preceding the five crushing seasons to the election and by the amended byelaw No.28, the qualification was made applicable to all five constituencies except the constituency contemplated under byelaw No.26(1)(c) i.e. constituency of non members. The argument of Shri Kadam is, if the amended bye-laws prescribed the qualification, then, the Returning Officer is bound to scrutinize the nomination for election to the Managing Committee strictly in accordance with the said bye-laws. But, if the petitioners are desirous of arguing that the bye-laws are contrary to the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and in particularly, Section 73-B and 73-C, as is sought to be argued, then, the challenge must be raised to the bye-laws itself, by instituting appropriate proceedings. In absence of any such challenge, the submission is, the Election Officer has rightly rejected the nomination papers and the Appellate Authority has upheld the said order. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent No.5/Sugar Factory, who joined Shri Kadam in his argument and urged that the impugned orders are liable to be upheld by dismissing the writ petitions. 13. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Election Officer, it is apparent that the nomination papers of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground of non compliance of the criteria as is set out in bye-law No.28. The Appellate Authority, while rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioners, has specifically culled out the chart of the crushing seasons in which, the respective petitioners have supplied the sugarcane to the Sugar Factory, as required in terms of the amended bye-law No.28. The order passed by the Appellate Authority considered the preceding five crushing seasons to be commencing from 2016-2017 and ending in 2020-2021. The five preceding crushing seasons, for the election of the respondent No.5/Sugar Factory, which is scheduled to be held in January, 2022, have been considered as 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019- 2020 and 2020-2021. As against this, the respective petitioners have supplied the sugarcane to the Sugar Factory in the following crushing seasons :- Sr. No. Writ Petition No. Name of Petitioner Crushing season in which the sugarcane is supplied 1. 14992/2021 Govind Vishwanath Wagh 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 2. 14994/2021 Devidas Vishwanath Salalkar 2015-2016, 2017-2018 and 2020-2021 3. 14995/2021 Ramesh Digambar Unde 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 4. No. Writ Petition No. Name of Petitioner Crushing season in which the sugarcane is supplied 1. 14992/2021 Govind Vishwanath Wagh 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 2. 14994/2021 Devidas Vishwanath Salalkar 2015-2016, 2017-2018 and 2020-2021 3. 14995/2021 Ramesh Digambar Unde 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 4. 14996/2021 Prakash Shamrao Patare 2015-2016, 2017-2018 and 2019-2020 By referring to the aforesaid chart, the Appellate Authority has returned the finding that the petitioners have not supplied the sugarcane to the Sugar Factory in three crushing seasons starting from the season 2016-2017 and coming to an end in the season 2020-2021. Recording that the petitioners have failed to comply with the qualifications prescribed in bye-law No.28, particularly condition No.2, the decision given by the Returning Officer on consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, was held to be proper and the argument of the petitioners that the current crushing season should also be counted, has been rejected while rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioners. 14. The impugned order has rightly interpreted the term “preceding season” as contemplated under bye-law No.28 and if the said bye-law is meaningfully read, it stipulate, the condition to the effect that the sugarcane shall be supplied by the contender/contesting member for three crushing seasons out of the five crushing seasons, immediately preceding the year in which the election is to be conducted and therefore, the preceding five crushing seasons are the seasons 2020-2021, 2019-2020, 2018-2019, 2017-2018 and 2016-2017, which immediately precede the election, which is to be conducted in the year 2022. The petitioners have failed to comply with the aforesaid requirement and therefore, both the authorities i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4 have held that they are not qualified to contest the elections and have rightly rejected their nomination papers. The Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, framed by the Cooperation Department in exercising of the powers conferred by sub-section (J-2) of Section 165 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which prescribed the rules to regulate the conduct of elections to the cooperative societies, contemplate that the elections shall be held in accordance with the Act, Rules and bye-laws and since the bye-laws prescribed the qualification for a candidate to be elected as a member of the Managing Committee of the Cooperative Society, the qualification is to be strictly construed and satisfied. 15. 15. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the approach of the respondent authorities is malafide, having not been established, the argument deserves to be rejected. The bye-laws governing the elections to be held in the year 2022 are the bye-laws as amended w.e.f. 15.12.2015 and the same not being challenged by the petitioners, the argument sought to be advanced to the effect that it is contrary to the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, cannot be accepted in this proceedings before me. 16. Necessarily by upholding the impugned orders in each petitions, the Writ Petitions deserve dismissal. Needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to assail the bye-laws if they are desirous of doing so on the ground that it travels beyond the scope of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the provisions contained therein. Necessarily all the four Writ Petitions are dismissed, by discharging the Rule. No order as to costs.