RAJENDRA PARATAPRAO NIKAT AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:43663
                                                1              WP.12432-26 (final order).odt



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 12432 OF 2026

                             RAJENDRA PARATAPRAO NIKAT AND ANOTHER
                                             VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND
                                             OTHERS

                                                      ...
                              Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe.
                            AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali S. Chaudhari.
                              Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S. K. Kadam.
                          Advocate for Respondent No.7 : Mr. Shekade Shashikant E.
                                                      ...

                                            CORAM : MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.
                                            DATE : 22.09.2026

                     FINAL ORDER :-


                     1.      The petitioners are raising challenge to the order dated

                     10.09.2026 passed by Respondent No.2 - The District Election

                     Officer @ Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,

                     Nashik Division, Nashik, whereby the objection raised by the

                     petitioners before Respondent No.2 for deletion of name of

                     Respondent No.7 from the voters list as a delegate of

                     Respondent No.5 to participate in the general election of

                     Respondent No.6 - Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative

                     Bank (hereinafter referred to as “ADCC Bank) has been

                     rejected.


                     2.      Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for the petitioners submits

                     that the resolution forwarding the name of Respondent No.7, is
                           2              WP.12432-26 (final order).odt



passed by the Managing Committee of Respondent No.5

Society.   In the meeting of the committee two names were

proposed. Among which, the name of Respondent No.7 was

forwarded, in view of the majority votes cast in his favour. The

name of Respondent No.7, was forwarded as a delegate in the

elections of Respondent No.6 - Bank for the year 2026-2031.

He submits that two members amongst the seven, who cast

vote in favour of Respondent No.7, were in fact defaulters of

Respondent No.5 - Society. A communication addressed by the

Secretary of Respondent No.5 to the Assistant Registrar, Karjat,

District Ahmednagar, dated 27.07.2026, is placed on record

which discloses that, they have become defaulters on

31.03.2025. Therefore, a proposal was moved by the secretary

of the Society, before the Assistant Registrar, Karjat for taking

appropriate action against the two defaulters.


3.    He submits that the resolution was passed by Managing

Committee of Respondent No.5 - Society on 08.07.2026. The

two members were already declared as defaulters on

31.03.2025. Having been declared as defaulters, they incurred

disqualification   under   Section   73CA(1)(i)(f)(ii)      of    the

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent

No.7 being elected by the defaulters is disqualified for
                            3            WP.12432-26 (final order).odt



representing the Respondent no. 5 - Society. On account of

casting of vote by the defaulting member a resolution passed

by Respondent No.5 - Society stands vitiated, hence the name

of Respondent No.7         is required to be deleted from the

provisional voters list.


4.    He has raised the grievance before Respondent No.2 -

District Election Officer, bringing all the aforementioned facts

to his notice. However, vide order dated 10.09.2026, the

Objection Application No.28/2026 filed by him has been

rejected by the Respondent no. 2 - District Election Officer,

holding that the meeting of Respondent No.5 - Society dated

08.07.2026, resolving to forward the name of Respondent

No.7, raises challenge to the validity of the decision and the

resolution passed by the Managing Committee, remedy against

which lies with the competent Court under Section 91 of the

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In absence of any

decision by the competent Court on the issue about the validity

of the resolutions and in absence of any interim order passed

by such Court, the objection raised by the petitioner cannot be

sustained. After recording the aforementioned observations,

the Respondent no. 2 has rejected the objection filed by the
                              4                 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt



petitioners referring to Rule 11(3) of the Maharashtra Co-

operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014.


5.    He    further   submits          that   the   petitioners         have

simultaneously filed a complaint before the Assistant Registrar

co-operative societies bringing it to his notice that, the two

members of the Managing Committee being defaulters are not

eligible to cast their vote in the meeting of Managing

Committee for selecting the name of the delegate, to represent

Respondent No.5 - Society. He submits that after the decision

of the Respondent no. 2, dated 10.09.2026, the Assistant

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karjat has also passed an

order declaring the two members of the Managing Committee

namely Mr. Rajendra Prataprao Nikat and Pradip Vishnu

Anarse as ‘defaulters’ and consequently ineligible to be

Members of the Managing Committee of Respondent No.5 -

Society.   With a further declaration that on account of the

disqualification   incurred       by   the    two   members        of    the

Committee, two posts of Respondent No.5 - Society’s Managing

committee have fallen vacant.


6.    He, therefore, submits that the status of the members of

the Managing Committee who were defaulters has now been

confirmed as ‘disqualified’ to be member of Managing
                           5               WP.12432-26 (final order).odt



committee, by the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-

operative Society, Karjat vide order dated 16.09.2026.

Consequently, on account of the participation of the two

members in the meeting, who were ineligible to vote in

support of the resolution passed in favour of Respondent No. 7

vitiated the decision of the meeting. In support of his

submission that, the order of declaration of being a ‘defaulter’,

is not the date relevant for being considered to be a ‘defaulter’

but the day of actual default by a person is relevant, reliance is

placed on the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.13665

of 2024 in Vilas Limbaji Wayal Vs. The Divisional Joint

Registrar Co-op. Societies, Chh. Sambhajinagar . In view of the

observations in the said order, according to him, Respondent

No.2 has not considered the issue about disqualification in its

proper perspective, while turning down the objection raised by

the petitioners.


7.    Per Contra Learned advocate Mr. Kadam appearing for

Respondent No.2 submits that, the petitioners are raising

disputed questions based on the resolution passed in the

meeting of the society dated 08.07.2026.            Such disputed

questions can only be decided in a dispute raised under Section

91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. He further
                         6               WP.12432-26 (final order).odt



raises an objection that, although the reliance is placed on

disqualification of two members of the Managing Committee

by the petitioners. The petitioners have not added them as

party to the Writ Petition.       He submits that unless the

resolution forwarding the name of Respondent No.7, is set

aside by deciding its validity.    Respondent No.2/Authority

cannot act on the objection raised by the petitioners.           He,

therefore, submits that the order passed by Respondent No.2 is

perfectly in consonance of the provisions of Maharashtra Co-

operative Societies Act and Maharashtra Co-operative Societies

(Elections to Committee) Rules, 2014.


8.    Learned advocate Mr. Shekade appearing for Respondent

No.7 submits that name of Respondent no. 7 has been

forwarded by a majority resolution, which is taken into account

by Respondent No.2 while rejecting the objection. It is rightly

observed by Respondent No.2 that, the petitioners will have to

raise dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act for challenging the resolution of the Managing

Committee. The Respondent No.2 is not empowered to decide

the validity of the resolution nominating him to cast vote on

behalf of Respondent No.5 - Society. He has further drawn my

attention to the minutes of the meeting which discloses that
                           7               WP.12432-26 (final order).odt



among the two names proposed in the meeting of the

Managing Committee, only one name was to be, forwarded

therefore the voting was conducted through secret ballot.

Thereafter, the result was declared by the Secretary of

Respondent No.5 - Society. The minutes of the meeting shows

that seven votes have been cast in favour of Respondent Nos.7,

and six votes were cast in favour of other candidate Satish

Maruti Nikat. Considering the majority votes cast in favour of

Respondent No.7, his name was selected to be forwarded to

represent Respondent No.5/Society.


9.    I have heard the respective parties and I have also gone

through the documents placed on record as well as the

decisions of this Court relied by the petitioners. The case of the

petitioner is straight forward. He claims that two members of

the Managing Committee namely, Pradip Vishnu Anarse and

Dattatraya Dhanraj Nighol were already defaulters on

31.03.2025 on account of failure to repay the loan of the

society availed by them. The proposal was already forwarded

to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karjat by the

Secretary of Respondent No.5, for taking appropriate action

against these two members of the Managing Committee. The

resolution which nominated Respondent No.7 as its delegate
                          8               WP.12432-26 (final order).odt



has been passed on 08.07.2026. Therefore, it is not in dispute

that the day on which the resolution has been passed by the

Managing Committee, the two members were already

defaulters   and   therefore,   they   were     disqualified       for

participating in the meeting of the Managing Committee.


10.   Section 27 deals with the voting powers of the members.

Section 27(10) provides that, if a member has taken a loan

from the society, such member shall, whenever he is a defaulter

as provided in the Explanation to clause (i) of sub-section (1)

of Section 73CA, have no right to vote in the affairs of the

society.


11.   In view of Section 27(10), the two members who were

defaulters were not eligible to participate in the meeting of the

society, which resolved to forward name of a delegate to cast

its vote in the elections of Respondent No.6 - Bank. Similarly,

Section 73CA    provides for disqualification of its committee

and its members. This Section also provides that no person

shall be eligible to be appointed, nominated, elected, co-opted,

or to continue as a member of the committee if he is a

defaulter of any society. The word ‘defaulter’ in context with

each category of society is explained in clause (a) to (f) of

Section 73 CA(1). Respondent No.5/Society being a Primary
                              9                 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt



Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, will be governed by

Clause (f), which reads thus :


      “(f)    in the case of District Central Co-operative Bank or of
      the State Co-operative Bank, a member, if he, -
      (i)     is a person who represents a society other than a
      primary agricultural credit co-operative society on the board
      of a Districct Central Co-operative Bank or the State Co-
      operative Bank, if the society to whom he represents has
      committed a default towards the payments of such Bank for
      a period exceeding ninety days;
      (ii)    is a person who is a defaulter of a primary
      agricultural credit co-operative society or is an office bearer
      of a defaulting primary agricultural co-operative credit
      society;
      (iii)   is a person who represents a society whose Managing
      Committee is superseded.”


12.   The case of the two members, who are defaulters would

stand squarely covered by Section 73 CA (1)(f)(ii). Since the

two members are defaulters of the Primary Agricultural Co-

operative Credit Society, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative

Societies has already taken cognizance of the complaint filed

by the Respondent no. 5 and passed an order declaring the two

members of the Managing Committee to be disqualified for

holding the membership of the Managing Committee vide

order dated 16.09.2026. Irrespective of the aforementioned

fact about the disqualification incurred by two members of the

committee amongst the thirteen members, the fact remains
                           10              WP.12432-26 (final order).odt



that in the meeting for passing resolution, to forward the name

of a delegate to vote on behalf of Respondent No.5, the voting

was done by ‘Secret Ballot’. Since, there were two candidates

whose names were proposed by the members and one name

was to be forwarded. A secret ballot was conducted in which

Respondent No.7 has secured seven votes while other

candidate has secured six votes. In this peculiar situation, the

question that arises before this Court is that, “whether it can be

ascertained from the minutes of the meeting as to who are the

seven members that have cast their votes in favour of

Respondent No.7. According to the minutes of meeting, the

votes have been cast by a secret ballot, therefore, it is

unascertainable as to in whose favour the two defaulting

members have cast their votes. Unless this fact is ascertained,

the resolution delegating Respondent No.7 to vote on behalf of

Respondent No.5 – Society, cannot be set aside. Since it is not

ascertainable from the record that two defaulters have cast

their votes in favour of Respondent No.7, therefore, in my

opinion, the order passed by Respondent No.2/District Election

Officer rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners cannot be

set aside by directing to delete the name of Respondent No.7

from the voters list for the ensuing elections of Respondent No.

6 – Bank, for the period of 2026-2031.
                          11            WP.12432-26 (final order).odt




13.     In the wake of the observations made hereinabove, the

Writ Petition stands dismissed.




                               (MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.)

                                  ...

vmk/-