SHRIPAD PANDURANG KHISTIversusTHE DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE ELECTION OFFICER AND OTHERS

                                  1                wp12709.26 Chamber

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 12709 OF 2026


     Shripad Pandurang Khisti,
     Age; 56 years, Occ; Agriculture,
     R/o; Vitthal Mandir, At Post
     Ajnuj, Tq. Shrigonda,
     District Ahilyanagar- 414 701.                 ...PETITIONER
                                                   (Original Applicant)

             VERSUS


1.   The District Co-Operative Election Officer,
     and Divisional Joint Registrar,
     Co-Operative Societies, Nashik Division,
     Grihanirman Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk,
     Nashik.


2.   The District Co-Operative Election Officer,
     and District Deputy Registrar,
     Co-Operative Societies, Ahilyanagar.

3.   The Taluka Co-Operative Election Officer,
     and Assistant Registrar,
     Co-Operative Societies, Shrigonda,
     Dist. Ahilyanagar.

4.   The Chief Executive Officer,
     The Ahmednagar District Central,
     Co-Opeative Bank Ltd., Ahilyanagar.

5.   The Secretary,
     Ajnuj Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari
     Society Ltd., Ajuj (Reg. No. ANR/RSR/9044),
     Tq. Shirgonda, District Ahilyanagar.

6.   Sau. Manisha Suryakant More,
     Age; 50 years, Occ; Agriculture,
     R/o; At Morewadi, Post Ajnuj,
     Tq. Shrigonda, District Ahilyanagar.          ...RESPONDENTS.
                                                   (Orig. Respondents)
                                      2                wp12709.26 Chamber

                              ………………
             Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Palodkar
         Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. S.K. Kadam
            Advocate for Respondent No. 6 : Mr. R.R. Karpe
                              ……………...


                           CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

                           DATE       : 23.09.2026


ORDER : -

1.          By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner raises challenge to

the order dated 10.09.2026, passed by respondent No. 1, the District Co-

Operative Election Officer and the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-

Operative Societies, Nashik, Division Nashik.



2.          The petitioner is an agriculturist and member of respondent

No. 5 Ajnuj Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Ajnuj (Reg. No.

ANR/RSR/9044), Tq. Shirgonda, District Ahilyanagar. Respondent No. 5

is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and is a member of respondent

No. 4, The Ahmednagar District Central, Co-Opeative Bank Ltd.,

Ahilyanagar. The elections of respondent No. 4 Bank have been declared

and accordingly, the members of bank were directed to send the name of

one delegate each, to represent the respective society in the election of

respondent No. 4 Bank, by passing appropriate resolution. The name of

respondent No. 6, who is the member of respondent No. 5 Society, has

been   forwarded,   upon    passing       of   an   appropriate    resolution   on

12.07.2026. The inclusion of the name of respondent No. 6 in the voters

list has been objected by the petitioner before respondent No.1.                The
                                   3            wp12709.26 Chamber

objection raised by the petitioner has been turned down by respondent

No. 1, on 10.09.2026, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition.



3.          Mr. Palodkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner has raised objection to the delegation of respondent

No. 6, to vote in the election of respondent No. 4 – Bank, on two grounds.

Firstly, on the ground that the election of Managing Committee of

respondent No. 5, which was held on 20.05.2022, has been challenged

by raising a Dispute No. 154 of 2022, before the Co-Operative Court,

Ahilyanagar. Pursuant to the order passed by the appellate Court at

Aurangabad, the votes were recounted and the report of the Court

Commissioner shows that, there were material discrepancies in the

election results.   The proceedings of the said Dispute are at the final

stage. Therefore, considering the pending dispute regarding the election

of the Members of Managing Committee, the resolution passed by the

Managing Committee which is subject matter of the Dispute is not valid.



4.          The other ground raised by the petitioner is that, the

husband of respondent No. 6, one Suryakant Vishnu More, is a director

on the board of respondent No. 5, therefore, respondent No. 6 being wife

and family member of director of respondent No. 5, could not be

delegated the power to cast vote on behalf of respondent No. 5 - Society.

More particularly, in view of the fact that respondent No. 5 itself is a

defaulter of respondent No. 4 - Bank. The annual report for the year

ending 31.03.2026 shows that 931 out of 1763 members are defaulters
                                    4             wp12709.26 Chamber

and a short term loan of Rs. 17,92,19,396/- is payable by it to the Bank.

Thus, in view of the fact that respondent No. 5 itself is a defaulting

society, the wife of a director of defaulting society, is not eligible to be

delegated to vote on behalf of respondent No. 5 - Society. He has drawn

attention of this Court to Clause - 2 of the Public Notice with reference to

Section 27(10) and Section 73CA (1)(f) of the Co-Operative Societies Act,

which provides that the primary Agricultural Credit Society, which is in

arrears may resolve to send instead of their director a member of the

Society who is not a defaulter. Only a society which is not in arrears

may send a director or a member to vote.         He further submits that

Clause (VII) of the said Public Notice makes it clear that if the

representative suffers from any disqualification, the representative can

be changed, if found to be disqualified by the order of Competent

Authority up to 5 days preceding the last date fixed for filing the

nomination.



5.            He   would   therefore,   submit   that    considering   that,

respondent No. 6 incurs disqualification, being wife of a director that too

of a defaulting society, the society can always substitute her with any

other person, who does not incur disqualification to represent the society

in the ensuing election of respondent No. 4 - Bank. He further submits

that the impugned order itself would show that, things have been

manipulated by respondent No. 6. In support of his submission he has

drawn my attention to the observations in the order, where the statement

of respondent No. 6 has been recorded, wherein she has stated that, the
                                   5             wp12709.26 Chamber

society has issued no dues certificate to respondent No. 6 on 04.09.2026.

She has also stated that she had obtained loan for the sugar cane crop to

the extent of Rs. 1,75,000/- on 28.02.2025, which has been returned

along with interest on 30.07.2026. According to him, on the cut off date

it is declared that the member is not defaulter on 01.06.2026. The date

mentioned in the explanation which is recorded by respondent No. 1,

clearly indicates that respondent No. 6 is a defaulter on the cut off date

i.e. 01.06.2026.   He further submits that there is discrepancy in the

dates given by the Society before respondent No. 1, which reveals that,

respondent No. 6 has obtained a crop loan of Rs. 1,75,000/- on

28.02.2025 and has repaid an amount of Rs. 1,93,065/- on 30.05.2026.

Similarly, referring to the opinion of the Assistant Registrar Co-Operative

Societies recorded in the impugned order, he has drawn my attention to

the date of repayment of the loan recorded by the Assistant Registrar,

which is recorded as 30.05.2026. According to him, there is a

discrepancy in the date for repayment given by the Society and the

respondent No. 6 itself, which creates a doubt about the exact dates on

which respondent No. 6 has repaid the loan amount and also whether

she was a defaulter on the cut off date. He also submits that although

he had filed an application, he was not heard and the objection has been

decided behind his back.



6.          Mr. S. K. Kadam, the learned Advocate, appearing for

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner is challenging the

order on frivolous grounds. There is no substance in the objection raised
                                    6             wp12709.26 Chamber

by the petitioner. So far as, the first ground of the petition, about the

pendency of the dispute, raising challenge to the election of Members of

Managing Committee is concerned, according to him there is no stay to

the election of the Current Managing Committee Members, therefore,

there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the

Managing Committee and its members are not empowered to select the

name of a delegate to be forwarded to cast vote on behalf of respondent

No. 5 - Society. According to him, respondent No. 1 has rightly taken

into consideration that aspect of the matter and has rejected the

contention of the petitioner.



7.          Mr. Rahul Karpe, the learned Advocate for respondent No. 6,

on affidavit submitted that, the order passed by respondent No. 1 is

perfectly justifiable, legal and valid. All the relevant provisions have been

rightly dealt with by the Competent Authority. He further submitted that

a report was called from the Assistant Registrar, Shrigonda, in

connection with the objection raised by the petitioner.           He further

submitted that respondent No. 6 is not a defaulter and has cleared all

her dues within time. He further submits that since no stay has been

granted by any Court of law, against the Managing Committee Members,

which is under challenge in the dispute raised by the petitioner, the

name of respondent No. 6 needs to be maintained in the final voters list

for the general election of respondent No. 4 - Bank.



8.          He further submits that, the objection raised by the
                                   7             wp12709.26 Chamber

petitioner was limited only to the extent of competency of the present

Managing Committee to forward the name of respondent No. 6, in view of

the pending dispute regarding the election to the Managing Committee,

as well as the relationship of respondent No. 6 with one of the co-opted

Directors, which according to the petitioner constitutes a disqualification

incurred by respondent No. 6, for being delegated to cast vote in the

election of respondent No. 4 Bank.       He submits that, merely being

related to a Director, who has been co-opted, would not incur any

disqualification for being delegated to cast vote on behalf of respondent

No. 5 - Society. According to him, respondent No. 6 is an independent

person and the member of respondent No. 5 - Society, hence, there is no

restriction on forwarding her name as a delegate of respondent No. 5 -

Society.   As such, no interference is called for in the order passed by

respondent No. 1.



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

documents placed on record with the assistance of the respective parties.



10.          The petitioner, who is a member of respondent No. 5 Society,

has raised an objection to the inclusion of the name of respondent No.

6, on the ground that the present Managing Committee of respondent

No. 5 - Society is not eligible to forward the name of a member of its

society to cast vote on its behalf, on the ground that the dispute

regarding the election of Managing Committee itself is pending before the

appropriate authority. Hence, in view of pending dispute, the Managing
                                    8             wp12709.26 Chamber

Committee is not empowered to forward the name. So far as, this ground

is concerned, there is no stay to the functioning of the present Managing

Committee by any Court, therefore, the first ground raised by the

petitioner would not survive. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 has rightly

observed that the objection raised by the petitioner in that regard is not

maintainable.



11.            So far as the second ground is concerned, in his written

objection dated 31.08.2026, addressed to the District Co-Operative

Election Officer and the Divisional Joint Registrar, petitioner has

objected to the resolution for forwarding the name of respondent No. 6,

on the ground that the husband of respondent No. 6, one Mr. Suryakant

Vishnu More is a Director of respondent No. 5 - Society.          Relying on

Section 73-CA(A1) read alongwith Section 27 Sub Sections (10) and

Section 75 Sub Section (10), it is claimed by the petitioner that as per

Section 73CA (A1) alongwith the director of a Society, even his family

members incur disqualification.         Thus, according to him, since the

husband of respondent No. 6 is a director of a defaulting Society,

respondent No. 6 in capacity of his wife also incur disqualification.

Section 73-CA(A1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, reads as below :

         “(A1)    In the case of a Society, which gives loans to members
         for     purchasing    machinery,      implements,     equipment,
         commodities or other goods, or which deals in such goods, no
         member, who or whose member of the family is a dealer in
         such goods or is a director of a company or a partner in a
         firm carrying on business in such goods, in the area of
         operation of the society shall be eligible for being elected or
                            9           wp12709.26 Chamber

nominated as a member of the committee of such society;


Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, the
expression "family" shall have me meaning as explained in
the Explanation 1. to sub-section (2) of section 75.


(1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act or the
rules made thereunder relation to the disqualification of
being member of a committee, no person shall be eligible for
being appointed, nominated, elected, co-opted or, for being a
member of a committee, if he-


(1)   is a defaulter of any society;


Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, the term
"defaulter" includes


(a) in the case of a primary agricultural credit society, a
member who defaults the repayment of the crop loan on the
due date;
(b) in the case of term lending society, a member who default
the payment of any instalment of the loan granted to him;


(c) in the case of any society,-


(i) a member who has taken anamat or advance; or
(ii) a member who has purchased any goods or commodities
on credit or availed himself of any services from the society
for which charges are payable; and fails to repay the full
amount of such anamat or advance or pay the price of such
goods or commodities or charges for such service, after
receipt of notice of demand by him from the concerned
society or within thirty days from the date of withdrawal of
anamat or advance by him or from the date of delivery of
                                   10             wp12709.26 Chamber

         goods to him or availing of services by him, whichever is
         earlier;
         (d) in the case of non-agricultural credit societies, a member
         who defaults payment of any installment of the loan granted;
         (e) in the case of housing societies, a member who defaults
         the payment the society within three months from the date of
         service of notice in writing served by post under certificate of
         posting demanding the payment of dues;”.


12.         Upon careful reading of the above mentioned provision, it is

evident that the aforementioned provision is applicable only to those

societies, which give loans to its members for purchasing machinery

implements etc.     No member of such Society, whose family member is

engaged in such business, or is a Director of any Company or partner of

a Firm carrying business of any such goods in the area of operation of

the society is eligible for being elected or nominated.          Admittedly

husband of petitioner is not a Director of any such Company or firm,

engaged in business of goods and machinery, hence Section 73CA (A1)

will not apply to disqualify respondent No. 6.



13.         So far as the disqualification on account of being defaulter is

concerned, though the petitioner has not raised any such ground in his

written complaint, but while making his submissions he has raised a

ground that, on the cut of date i.e. 01.06.2026, the respondent No. 6 was

a ‘defaulter’, as she had not cleared her dues of loan obtained by her

from respondent No. 5 Society. So far as the aforementioned ground is

concerned, the learned Advocate for respondent No. 6 has tendered

across the bar the receipt issued by respondent No. 5 Society, about the
                                     11           wp12709.26 Chamber

repayment of dues by respondent No. 6 on 30.05.2026 itself, therefore,

the said objection would not survive. Even otherwise, so far as, incurring

disqualification on account of being defaulter is concerned, it is governed

by Section 73CA (1) (f) of the Co-operative Societies Act, which reads thus

:

          “Section 73CA (f) disqualification of committee and its its
          members
          '[(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 District 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)(i) 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.
          *ii) has, in the opinion of the Registrar, deliberately
          committed breach of co-operative discipline with reference
          to linking up of credit with co-operative marketing co-
          operative processing; or
          (ii-a) **or]
          *(iii) has been held responsible under section 79 or 88 or
          has been held responsible for payment of costs of inquiry
          under section 85; or
          *(iv) has incurred any disqualification under this Act or
          the rules made thereunder; :or by-laws of the society;
          *(v)   carries on business of the kind carried on by the
                                   12              wp12709.26 Chamber

          society either in the area on of the society or in
          contravention of the provisions of [clause (b) of sub-A1)];
          or]
          Explanation. [***]
          *(vi)   is a salaried employee of any society (other than a
          society of employees themselves ) or holds any office of
          profit under any society, except when he holds or is
          appointed to the office of a Managing Director or any other
          office declared by the State Government by general or
          special order not to disqualify its holder or is entitled to be
          (or is nominated as functional director on the committee
          of a society under (2) of section [73AAA]].
          *(vii) has more than two children:”


14.         Since respondent No. 5 – Society is a primary agricultural

Credit Co-Operative Society, the explanation of ‘defaulter’ is provided in

Section 73CA (1)(f) of the Co-operative Societies Act would be applicable.

Only in case the three conditions as mentioned under item Nos. (i) to (iii)

of Sub Clause (f) of Section 73CA are fulfilled, the disqualification as a

defaulter would be incurred. The first Clause (i) is applicable to the

person who represents Society, other then the Primary Agricultural

Credit Society, therefore, it would not apply to the petitioner as the

respondent No. 5 Society is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The

Clause (ii) would be attracted in case a person who is defaulter of

primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society or is office bearers of

defaulting primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society. So far as

the first condition is concerned, respondent No. 6 has already cleared the

doubt about the date on which the repayment of the loan has been made

by placing on record the loan repayment receipt, therefore, she would not
                                   13            wp12709.26 Chamber

incur disqualification as defaulter of Primary Agricultural Society.

Hence, in view of the aforementioned observations, made herein-above,

the order passed by respondent No. 1 is justified, legally sound and valid

order and does not deserve any interference. As such, the Writ Petition

stands dismissed.



                                   ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




Mahajansb/