Bombay High Court
AMAR SAHAKARI MAJUR SANSTHA LTD AND ANRversusSTATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that no interference in the election process is permissible at this advanced stage, and the petitioners’ exclusion from the provisional voters’ list stands.
Summary
The petitioners, members of a cooperative society, challenged a July 20, 2026 order of the Returning Officer that excluded their names from the provisional voters’ list for the upcoming cooperative election. They argued that they had previously been included after objections were sustained in 2022 and that their exclusion, based on a cut‑off date, was illegal and would not prejudice the election. The respondents contended that the election programme was at an advanced stage, with polling scheduled for September 5, 2026, and that any alteration to the voters’ list would disrupt the process. The court noted that the final voters’ list and nomination schedule had already been set and that the petitioners had delayed filing their writs without justification. Consequently, the court held that interference at this late stage would cause prejudice and dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether the exclusion of the petitioners from the provisional voters’ list, based on the cut‑off date, is legally valid.
- Whether the court can intervene in the election process at such a late stage to include the petitioners.
Subjects
- Cooperative Society Election
- Provisional Voters List
- Cut‑off Date
- Election Programme
- Writ Petition
- Judicial Intervention
Judgment
906-4313-2026-C=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4313 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by Amar Sahakari Majur Sanstha Ltd And Anr … Petitioners
UDAY
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
Vs.
JAGTAP Date:
2026.09.02
19:12:25
+0530 State Co-Operative Election Authority And Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4314 OF 2026
Anisa Khan Kamgar Majur Sahakari Sanstha Ltd … Petitioners
Vs.
State Co-Operative Election Authority And Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 8035 OF 2026
Shri Ram Samarth Khan Kamgar Majur Sahakari … Petitioners
Sanstha Ltd. Thr. Secretary Bajrang Chinnappa
Shingare
Vs.
State Co-Operative Election Authority And Ors. ... Respondents
………….
Mr. Rugwed R. Kinkar for the Petitioners
Mr. Ruturaj P. Pawar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Shrikrishna Ganbavale a/w Shantanu Patil, Prithviraj Raorane,
Ashirwad Kolekar, Kunal Nalawade for Respondent No.3.
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P. C. :
. Heard both sides.
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 4
906-4313-2026-C=.doc
2. The petitioners are challenging order passed on 20.07.2026 by the
Returning Officer overruling their objections for inclusion of their names
in the provisional voters’ list. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
vehemently argued that the petitioners were the members of the
respondent no.3 – Federation and had participated in the previous
election conducted in 2022. They were required to approach the
Returning Officer against their illegal omission in the provisional voters’
list and the objections were sustained by order dated 17.01.2022.
Thereafter their names were included and they have participated. This
time also they are excluded from the provisional voters’ list on the
premise that the enrollment was subsequent to the cut of date fixed by
the respondents. The reasons assigned for overruling the objection is
stated to be ex facie illegal. It is submitted that no prejudice would be
caused either to the election process or to the stake holders if they are
still included in the voters’ list.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Pawar appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2
has placed on record Election Programme to buttress that polling is
scheduled to be held on 05.09.2026 and it would not be practicable to
interfere in the impugned order so as to include the petitioners in the
voters’ list.
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 4
906-4313-2026-C=.doc
4. Learned counsel Mr. Ganbavale appearing for respondent no.3
would submit that there is a genuine reason for exclusion of the
petitioners in the provisional voters’ list. They were not the members on
the cut of date. Their entitlement to be the members of the society is
seriously disputed. It is further pointed out that couple of primary
societies had approached the Division Bench for inclusion of their names
but they were unsuccessful. Thereafter they had approached Apex Court
but could not secure any orders. The petitioners are taking chances and
the petitions cannot be entertained at the fag end of the election process.
It is further submitted that there are 32 similarly situated societies whose
objections are overruled and any indulgence in favour of the petitioners
would likely to give cause of action for those societies to approach this
Court, which will hamper the election process.
5. My attention is adverted to the Election programme which is
tendered by Mr. Pawar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 on
record. The final voters’ list had already been prepared long back. The
time for submission of the nomination was from 03.08.2026 to
07.08.2026. The scrutiny of the nomination was scheduled on
10.08.2026. Thereafter, list of valid nominees was published on
11.08.2026. The time for withdrawal of the nomination was upto
25.08.2026. The symbol was distributed on 27.08.2026. Polling is fixed
Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 4
906-4313-2026-C=.doc
on 05.09.2026 and the counting and result on the same date. The
election programme is virtually at the final stages. No interference at this
stage of proceeding is permissible.
6. The impugned order is passed on 20.07.2026 and the petitions are
filed on or about 27.08.2026. The petitioners have not explained as to
why they did not promptly approach this Court after receiving the
impugned order.
7. I am not inclined to cause any interference in the election process
or grant any relief to the petitioners under above circumstances. No
case is made out. As the polling is fixed on 05.09.2026, any indulgence
at this stage of the proceedings is likely to cause prejudice to the
respondents or the stake holders.
8. The Writ Petitions are dismissed.
9. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise grievance, as is
permissible in law.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 4
Checking your session…