As per case facts, a cooperative society ('Sangh') initially decided to send respondent No. 7 as its delegate for an election. Later, following a directive to amend bye-laws, the Sangh ... held another meeting and resolved to send the appellant instead, informing the Collector. However, the Collector finalized the voters' list without changing the delegate's name, citing that the change was not properly on the agenda. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Writ Petition, which the High Court dismissed, stating the election process had started. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the Collector was bound to effect the change in the delegate's name as per the Sangh's resolution, given the rules allowed such changes within a stipulated period and whether the High Court erred in not interfering with the election process at this stage. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Sangh had the statutory right under Rule 5(2) of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Election Rules to change its delegate's name within the prescribed period. The Court found the Collector's refusal to effect the change unlawful, quashing the Collector's order and directing the appellant to be treated as the Sangh's representative. It distinguished previous precedents, emphasizing that while courts generally don't interfere mid-election, an action contrary to law, especially when a statutory right is exercised, warrants intervention.