MANOJKUMAR SADASHIVRAO POLversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. CO-OPERATIVE MINISTRY OF MAHARASHTRA STATE AND ORS.

              1                        902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C)

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             WRIT PETITION NO.4532 OF 2026

Manojkumar Sadashivrao Pol                 .. Petitioner
           Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Co-operative
Ministry Of Maharashtra State & Ors.       .. Respondents

                       WITH
            WRIT PETITION NO. 4534 OF 2026

Maan Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh
Maryadit, Dahiwadi Through Its Chairman       …...Petitioner
     Versus
The State Of Maharashtra through
The Secretary & Ors.                          …...Respondents

                               ...
Mr. Kirankumar Phakade with Ms. Shweta Phakade i/b Mr.
Arjun Mohite, Advocate for the Petitioner WP. No.4532 of 2026.
Mr. Pradeep Dalvi with Mr. Drupad Patil, Mr. Rahul Khot and
Mr. Hange, i/b Mr. Harsh Khot, Advocate for the Respondent
No.7 in WP. No.4532 of 2026 and Respondent No.6 in WP.
No.4534 of 2026.
Mr. Louis Shah with Mr. Swaroop M. Karade, Advocate for the
Respondent No.6 in WP. No.4532 of 2026 and Petitioner in WP.
No.4534 of 2026.
Mr. Ruturaj P. Pawar, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in both WP.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 4-State.
Mr. J. P. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 4 WP. No.4534
of 2026.
                                 ...
                2                          902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C)

                    CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                     DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.


FINAL ORDER:


               WRIT PETITION NO. 4534 OF 2026

.     Heard.


2.    The Respondents have raised a preliminary objection in

Writ Petition No.4534 of 2026. It is submitted that, in the

absence of any averment in the petition memo regarding the

resolution and authorization to prosecute the Writ Petition, the

Writ Petition is not tenable in the High Court.


3.    The submission is countered by the Petitioner-Co-operative

Society, contending that it is required to be filed in peculiar

circumstances. The impugned order was passed on 07.09.2026,

and it was made available on 08.09.2026. There was no breathing

period to compile all the documents and produce them before the

Court. The resolution has already been passed, which can be

produced. It is stated to be a curable defect.


4.    I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. I

find that it is trite law that there has to be averment, which is
               3                         902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C)

the foundation, to disclose the locus of the Petitioner. In the

absence of such averment, there is reason to infer that the

petition is not maintainable. I find substance in the objection.

The objection is sustained. The Writ Petition is dismissed for

want of locus standi. The dismissal shall not cause any prejudice

to another petition presented by the representative of the said

cooperative society.


              WRIT PETITION NO.4532 OF 2026


5.    The order dated 07.09.2026 passed by the Returning Officer

is under challenge, in which the objection raised by the

Respondent No.7 against the Petitioner representative has been

sustained.


6.    Undisputedly, the Petitioner society’s term was over on

19.12.2022; the earlier elected body continued. Thereafter, the

administrator was appointed by the competent authority under

Section 77 A(b) on 12.08.2026. It was subjected to challenge

before the Divisional Joint Registrar, and stay to the execution

was solicited before the authority. It was rejected on 19.09.2026.


7.    Being aggrieved, Writ Petition No. 4111 of 2026 was
               4                         902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C)

preferred. This Court passed ad-interim relief in terms of prayer

clauses (b) and (c), thereby staying the execution of the

appointment of arbitrator vide order dated 24.08.2026. The Writ

Petition is still pending.


8.     The Petitioner claims that the resolution was passed in

meeting of managing committee on 17.07.2026 appointing him to

represent the Respondent No.6-Society. It was confirmed on

28.08.2026 in a General Body Meeting. The resolution was

presented before the Returning Officer. As there was stay

granted by the High Court to the appointment of Administrator,

the outgoing managing committee can be said to be in operation.

The Returning Officer is contended to have exceeded his

jurisdiction in entertaining the objection of the Respondent No.7.


9.    Mr. Pradeep Dalvi, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent No.7, vehemently submits that it is impermissible to

entertain the Petition as the Petition preferred by the

Respondent No.6-Cooperative is dismissed. The term of the

Managing Committee was ended long back and the Petitioner

has no independent right or locus to challenge the impugned

order. It is further submitted that the proviso to sub-Section 3 of
               5                          902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C)

Section 73 AAA was deleted on 15.04.2026. It would be a matter

of inquiry before the competent authority as to whether any fault

is attributed to the society or not. It is further submitted that

there is no error of jurisdiction committed by the Returning

Officer and he has rightly exercised the power under Rule 11 (3)

of the Act. It is further contended that the papers of Writ Petition

No. 4111 of 2026 be called for to ascertain the stand taken by the

society. It is contended that if the society is ineligible to be a

member of the federal society, then its representation would be

bad in law.


10.   Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent

Nos.6, supports the Petitioner. My attention is invited to Section

73 CB(12). It is further submitted that the name of the

Respondent No. 6-Society is already appearing in the provisional

list. It is further contended that the Resolutions passed on

17.07.2026 as well as 28.08.2026 have not been challenged before

the competent forum.


11.   The scope of the inquiry under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2014

of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “MCS Act”) has

already been dealt with by this Court in the matter of Vithlai
                       6                 902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C)

Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit

Karanjphen and Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra

and Ors., decided on 03.09.2026. The various judgments in this

regard were considered, including that of Dhondiba Parshuram

Lakade Vs. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana

Limited, Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj)

Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & Anr. Vs. State of

Maharashtra and Ors.1and Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and others

Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.2. I have taken view that

legality of resolution involving intricate issue can not be gone

into by Returning Officer.


12.      In the present matter, the term of the Respondent No. 6-

Society was over on 19.12.2022; the outgoing committee is

holding office. The resolution dated 17.07.2026 was passed in a

Meeting of the Managing Committee, which is confirmed in the

meeting of the General Body on 28.08.2026. The Administrator

was appointed by order of the Assistant Registrar on 12.08.2026.

The effect of the said order is stayed by this Court vide order

dated 24.08.2026 in Writ Petition No. 4111 of 2026.

1   (2001) 8 SCC 509
2   1997(1) Mh.L.J. 543.
               7                         902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C)




13.   The predominant reason for raising the objection is that

the term of the outgoing committee was over on 19.12.2022.

However, in view of the proviso to Section 73 AAA(3), it can be

said that the outgoing committee was holding over and had the

right to transact the business. The Petitioner is Class-B society.

The resolution appointing the Petitioner is valid, prima facie.


14.   The Returning Officer has a limited scope of inquiry under

Rule 11. It is a summary inquiry. Whether the outgoing

committee was having any power or whether the business

transacted by it is legal or not would be within the realm of

inquiry before the competent authority. When the documents

regarding the passing of the resolution in favour of the Petitioner

and the stay granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4111 of

2026 are on record, that would corroborate the Petitioner. The

Petitioner’s claim should have been accepted. I find that the

Respondent-Returning Officer committed patent illegality. The

valuable right of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 6-

Society is at stake, which cannot be taken away in this fashion.
                8                            902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C)

15.    I find that today is the date of finalization of the voters list.

The further election program is yet to be declared. If the

impugned order is set aside, it is possible to include the

Petitioner. The impugned order is executable and would not

disturb the further process of election. In view of the law laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of

Dattatraya Genabe Lole and Ors. Vs. The Divisional Joint

Registrar Cooperative Societies, Pune, decided on 26.11.2021, I

find that a case is made out and it is appropriate for this Court to

intervene in the matter.


16.    Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and

(b).


17.    After   pronouncement      of   the   order,   learned   counsel

appearing for the Respondent No. 7 prays for suspending the

order for two weeks so as to enable his client to approach the

Hon’ble Apex Court.


18.    The Petitioner and Respondent No. 6 have opposed the

request.
                 9                         902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C)

19.      Considering the timeline of the ensuing election process, I

am not inclined to accept the request. Hence, the request is

rejected.




                                [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

Suresh