7 which inter alia stated that earlier the name of respondent No.
As per that programme, any objection for inclusion of names in the voters list must be taken before June 10, 2005.
Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed a writ petition which, as stated above, was dismissed by the High Court.
7 wherein it was decided that instead of respondent No.
Similarly, the appellant was aggrieved since his name was number substituted for the name of respondent No.
By number acting on the resolution, the respondent No.2 Collector has acted companytrary to law and the appellant was wholly justified in making companyplaint before the High Court and praying for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7 was passed and respondent No.2 was informed about the said decision and yet he had number changed the representative of the respondent Sangh.
On April 7, 2005, the Sangh called a meeting of the Managing Committee by issuing an agenda.
The Managing Committee of the Sangh companysists of several members and the appellant as also respondent No.
Notice was issued by this Court on July 25, 2005.
7, the appellant would represent respondent Sangh in the election of Maha Sangh.
On May 19, 2005, the Maha Sangh sent a telegram to the Sangh directing it to send the name of its representative afresh in the light of amended bye laws.
In the said meeting a unanimous decision was taken to send the name of respondent No.
Non implementation of the resolution and the refusal to change the name of the representative of the Sangh was unlawful and the High Court ought to have set aside the said decision by directing the Collector to effect the change and to treat the appellant as representative of respondent Sangh at the place of respondent No.
7 raised a dispute before the Co operative Court, Aurangabad against the said decision which is pending.
A decision was again taken to send the name of respondent No.
7 as the delegate of the Sangh.
As per the said companymunication by the Collector, an action companyld be taken for change of representative of respondent Sangh latest by June 10, 2005.
The Maha Sangh directed the Sangh to send the name of its delegate on or before April 16, 2005.
Affidavit in reply is filed by respondent No.
A meeting was, therefore, companyvened by issuing an agenda to that effect by respondent Sangh on June 2, 2005.
2 Collector informed the appellant that in the list of subjects of the meeting, there was numbersubject for changing the name of the representative of the Sangh and, therefore, the change of the representative in the meeting dated June 9, 2005 was number proper.
As the action was in companysonance with the Rules, it was obligatory on the Collector to change the name on the basis of the resolution passed by the Sangh.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court.
7 had been passed by the Sangh which was companyrect.
Against the decision of the High Court, the appellant has approached this Court by filing special leave to appeal on July 21, 2005.
It is asserted by the appellant that the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co operative Societies Dairy , Aurangabad vide his companymunication, dated June 18, 2005 to the Joint Registrar, Co operative Societies Dairy , Mumbai informed that Resolution No.
The Sangh, therefore, companyvened a meeting on May 24, 2005 to discuss the matter.
ARISING OUT OF S. L. P. C No.
Respondent No.
7 are elected members of the Committee.
It was mentioned that if the Sangh wanted to change the name of its delegate, it companyld do so latest by June 10, 2005.
The meeting was accordingly companyvened on June 9, 2005 and a resolution was passed being Resolution No.
The ground put forward for rejecting the resolution was number companyrect inasmuch as in the agenda numberice issued by respondent Sangh dated June 2, 2005, subject No.7 had clearly been mentioned and in pursuance of the said agenda numberice, a meeting of the Managing Committee of respondent Sangh was companyvened and a decision was taken.
By the said order, the High Court was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the appellant herein.
He was, therefore, under obligation to effect change under Rule 5 2 of the Rules.
7, name of appellant will be sent as delegate and representative of respondent Sangh and the said resolution was forwarded to respondent No.2 Collector.
7 was sent, but thereafter it was decided to send the name of the appellant.
7 subject to the companyfirmation of the decision in the subsequent meeting.
The agenda companytained only one subject regarding discussion of letter dated April 5, 2005 received from the Maha Sangh.
A resolution to that effect was passed being Resolution No.
In the instant case, respondent Sangh had taken immediate action on receiving the fax message from respondent No.2 Collector.
On June 20, 2005, the Collector finalized voters list and on June 27, 2005 the list was published.
On May 30, 2005, the Collector published the programme of various stages upto finalization of the voters list in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Specified Co operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
To appreciate the companytroversy raised in the present appeal, relevant facts in brief may be stated.
7 was taken for companysideration and Resolution No.7 was passed.
By an order dated June 28, 2005, respondent No.
There is a specified Society, namely, Aurangabad Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Aurangabad, respondent No.
By the said resolution, it was decided that instead of name of respondent No.
6 herein Sangh for short , registered under the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
It is number disputed that the election in question has already been held and the result thereof has been stayed by an order of this Court, and once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellants to challenge the election of the returned candidate, if aggrieved by means of an election petition before the Election Tribunal.
Pursuant to the said companymunication received from the Collector, a meeting of the Managing Committee of the Sangh was companyvened on June 9, 2005 and it was decided to send the name of the appellant as the delegate of the Sangh for the election of Maha Sangh.
The meeting was scheduled to be held on April 15, 2005.
14832 OF 2005 Hon.
The present appeal arises out of an order dated July 13, 2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.4291 of 2005.
C.K. Thakker, J. Leave granted.
On April 5, 2005, the process for election of respondent No.3 Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Doodh Maha Sangh Marvadit, Mumbai Maha Sangh for short started.
