Bombay High Court
VISHNU TANAJI KHADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE CO-OPERATIVE MINISTRY OF MAHARASHTRA STATE AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Returning Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner’s nomination; the petitioner's nomination is valid.
Summary
The petitioner, Vishnu Tanaji Khade, challenged an order dated 07.09.2026 by the Divisional Joint Registrar (Respondent No.2) that, on the objection of the Chairman of the Palashi Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. (Respondent No.5), excluded the petitioner’s name from the voters' list of Satara District Central Co‑operative Bank. The petitioner claimed to be the duly nominated representative of the Society based on a resolution passed on 05.08.2026, which the Returning Officer rejected as violative of Bye‑law No.9(5)(a) and the 5‑day notice requirement. The petitioner argued that the Returning Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction and that the validity of the resolution should be examined by the Co‑operative Court under Section 91, not by the election officer. The respondents contended that the resolution was a nullity for lack of proper notice and that the Returning Officer acted within his powers under Rule 11. The Court held that the Returning Officer had indeed exceeded his jurisdiction by scrutinising the substance of the resolution and that the petitioner’s nomination should be accepted, setting aside the impugned order.
Issues considered
- The extent of the Returning Officer’s jurisdiction under Section 11 and Rule 11 in rejecting a nominee’s name.
- Whether the resolution of the cooperative society complied with Bye‑law No.9(5)(a) and the statutory 5‑day notice requirement.
- Whether the validity of the society’s resolution is a matter for the Co‑operative Court under Section 91, not the election authority.
- The propriety of the Chairman’s objection and its impact on the election process.
Legislation cited
- Co-operative Societies Act — s. 11, 91
Subjects
- co-operative society
- election law
- returning officer jurisdiction
- bye‑law violation
- Section 91
- Section 11
- temporary injunction
- voters list
Judgment
912-4533-2026-WP=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4533 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
Vishnu Tanaji Khade … Petitioner
UDAY UDAY
SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP Vs.
Date:
JAGTAP 2026.09.12
16:49:41
+0530
1. State of Maharashtra
2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Kolhapur
3. Satara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
4. The Managing Committee, Palashi Vividh
Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd.
5. Sunil Tukaram Gambre … Respondents
………….
Mr. Kiran Kumar Phukade a/w Arjun Mohite for the Petitioner
Mr. Suryajeet Chavan a/w D.L. Hange, Atul Khilari i/b Harsh Arun Khot
for Respondent No.5.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.1 - State
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner is challenging order dated 07.09.2026 passed by
respondent no.2 sustaining the objection of the respondent no.5 against
the petitioner and excluding petitioner’s name from the voters’ list of the
respondent no.3 - Satara District Central Co-operative Bank.
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 5
912-4533-2026-WP=.doc
3. The petitioner claims that he is duly nominated representative of
the respondent no.4 – Co-operative Society, placing reliance on the
Resolution passed on 05.08.2026. The respondent no.5 is the Chairman
of the Respondent No.4 – Society who is objecting the nomination of the
petitioner. The Resolution of the primary societies were to be submitted
from 07.07.2026 to 05.08.2026. Accordingly, petitioner’s nomination
was presented but it is rejected on the ground that the Resolution is
against the bye law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced arguments in
support of his contention. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 –
Returning Officer travelled beyond his jurisdiction and examined the
validity of the Resolution. The self same Resolution is challenged in a Co-
operative Dispute No. 93 of 2026 and application for temporary
injunction at Exh.5 was rejected. It is vehemently submitted that the
validity of the Resolution or the Meeting would be the subject matter of
proceeding under Section 91.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.5 – objector would
submit that the Resolution is nullity. There was no sufficient coaram
initially and there was no 05 days clear notice. It is submitted that
though he was present in the meeting in question, but he is entitled to
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 5
912-4533-2026-WP=.doc
raise the objection. The impugned order is passed within four corners of
law.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Pawar appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3
would submit that the Resolution is against Bye Law No. 9(5)(a), which
is rightly appreciated by the Returning Officer. The bye laws are binding.
The Returning Officer acted as per Rule 11. The scope for entertaining
the petition in election matters is very limited and no interference is
called for.
7. The petitioner is nominated to represent the respondent no.4 –
Society in a meeting dated 05.08.2026. Initially, the meeting was
convened on 03.08.2026 but for want of forum, no Resolution could be
passed. It was adjourned to 05.08.2026. The respondent no.5 who is
objector is the Chairman of respondent no.4 – Society was present in
both the meetings.
8. The bye law of the meeting provides that for want of coram if the
meeting is required to be adjourned then, it would be convened after
notice of 5 days. The parties have already approached the Co-operative
Court under Section 91 challenging the Resolution dated 05.08.2026.
Application Exh.5 for temporary injunction has been rejected vide order
dated 10.09.2026. It would be within the purview of Section 91 to
Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 5
912-4533-2026-WP=.doc
examine the validity of the Resolution, the purport of concerned bye law
and its interpretation.
9. The scope of the Returning Officer while exercising powers under
Section 11 has already been expounded in various judgments including
Dhondiba Parshuram Lakade Vs. Shri Someshwar 1979 Mah LJ 311 and
Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
1997(1) Mh.L.J. 543. There is no need to dilate it further. The
Returning Officer has summary jurisdiction and intricate question cannot
be gone into.
10. The impugned order reflects that because of the objection of the
respondent no.5, the niceties of alleged violation of bye law No. 9(5)(a)
and the 05 days notice have come to the fore. The Resolution dated
05.08.2026 was submitted within stipulated period. The Returning
Officer should have accepted it. It was not within his purview to examine
the validity of the Resolution that too at the instance of respondent no.5 –
objector. I find that the Returning Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in
rejecting the nomination of the petitioner.
11. The respondent no.5 is the Chairman of the Society. He was
present in the meetings held on 03.08.2026 as well as 05.08.2026. His
objection in all probabilities appears to be to settle the personal score.
Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 5
912-4533-2026-WP=.doc
Such objection should not have been entertained by the Returning
Officer.
12. This Court is aware of the scope of interference of the High Court
in election process in view of law laid in the case of Dattatray Genba Lole
and others Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors.
reported in (2021) 2 HCC (Bom) 612. I am of the considered view that
interference is required without disturbing or stalling the election
process. The valuable right of the respondent no.4 – Society is at stake.
The submissions of the petitioner need to be accepted in view of
judgment of Division Bench in the case of Kamlabai Vitthal Rohankar Vs.
Additional Collector & Ors. 2007 (3) All MR 761.
13. I, therefore, pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 5
Checking your session…