LATE TAMMA TUKARAM KARADE VIVIDH KARYKARI VIKAS SOCIETY KAREWADI (TIKONDI) LTD. THR. VICE CHAIRMANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. DEPT. OF CO. OPERATION AND TEXTILES AND ORS.

                           1                       902-WP-4564-2026

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

              WRIT PETITION NO. 4564 OF 2026

Late Tamma Tukaram Karade
Vividh Karykari Vikas Society Karewadi
(tikondi) Ltd. Through Vice Chairman          ...Petitioner
      Vs.
State Of Maharashtra Through
Dept. Of Co. Operation & Textiles & Ors.      ...Respondents

                               ...
Mr. Ishaan Kapse, Advocate for Petitioner..
Mr. Ruturaj Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Shubham Dhenge i/b Mr. Manoj Patil, Advocate for
Respondent No.3.
                              …..
                   CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                    DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

FINAL ORDER :

.      Heard both sides.


2.     The Petitioner      takes exception   to the order dated

07.09.2026 passed by the District Cooperative Election Authority,

rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for incorporation in the

voters list on the ground that the Petitioner became a member

after the cut-off date, i.e. 22.11.2023.


3.     Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner adverted my

attention to the Bank Statement of Respondent No.3-Federal
                               2                           902-WP-4564-2026

Society disclosing payment of share capital of Rs.20,100/- on

23.10.2023, the communication dated 19.10.2023 and Section 27

of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short

“the Act”). Reliance is placed on the letter dated 27.08.2026 and

the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of

Hariom Shetkari Samuh Krushi Sahitya Va Dhanya

Godam Sahakari Sanstha through its Chairmand Vs.

Divisional Joint Registrar and Ors.1


4.       Mr.     Ruturaj      Pawar,   learned   counsel   appearing    for

Respondent No.2, would submit that there are disputed questions

of fact and, in a summary inquiry, it is not expected of the

Returning Officer to adjudicate intricate issues. My attention is

adverted to Section 26 of the Act to buttress that the Petitioner

did not invest the entire amount in one go and that further

investment was made on 29.12.2023. It is further pointed out

that the Petitioner or its representatives were absent at the time

of hearing and that this Court cannot take into account the

submissions made for the first time.


5.       The cut-off date was declared on 22.11.2023 as per the


1    (2021) 3 AIR BoM R 512
                          3                          902-WP-4564-2026

correspondence    dated       30.06.2026.   The   Petitioner   or    its

representative did not remain present for the hearing before

Respondent No.2. It appears that, through the representation

dated 23.10.2023, it was submitted that the share capital was

provided by the Petitioner-Primary Society to Respondent No.3-

Federal Society, relying upon the resolution passed by the Board

of Directors on 05.12.2023. It is concluded by Respondent No.2

that the Petitioner was made a member after the cut-off date and

was declared ineligible for participation in the election process.


6.    The statement of Respondent No.3-Bank shows that the

share capital amounting to Rs.20,000/- was paid by the Petitioner

on 23.10.2023. By the letter of Respondent No.3 dated

19.10.2023, Rs.100/- appears to be the entrance fee. The Bank

statement further reveals that Rs.80/- was further paid on

29.12.2023. In this regard, it is relevant to see Section 27, which

stipulates investment of any part of its funds in the shares of any

federal society. It does not contemplate payment of the entire

share capital.
                          4                        902-WP-4564-2026

7.    Even if it is held that Rs.80/- was the deficit amount which

was paid at a later point of time, that would not debar the

Petitioner and, by application of the statutory provision, it

becomes a member after completion of three years from the

investment of the substantive part.


8.    I find that a case is made out by the Petitioner that it is

eligible to be a member, as the substantive investment was made

prior to the cut-off date.


9.    The emphasis is made by Mr. Ruturaj Pawar on Section 26

to show that the Petitioner was not eligible for non-payment of

the entire contribution. I have already observed that the

substantive part of the investment has already been made. The

claim of the Petitioner cannot be faulted. Prima facie, by

implication of Section 27(3), the Petitioner has to be held eligible

for inclusion in the voters list.


10.   Even if it is accepted that the later payment of Rs.80/- was

made after the cut-off date, Section 27(3) does not contemplate

payment of the entire amount for the investment by the Primary

Society. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not accept the
                       5                         902-WP-4564-2026

submission that disputed questions of fact are involved in the

matter.


11.   Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent is rightly

contending that nobody remained present on behalf of the

Petitioner at the time of hearing. Care should have been taken by

the Petitioner and its representative to point out these facts

before Respondent No.2, but that cannot operate to the detriment

of the substantive right of the Petitioner to participate in the

election process. For this lapse, I propose to impose costs of

Rs.25,000/-.


12.   Though the powers of Respondent No.3 are summary in

nature, the very purport is to examine the eligibility of the

member. It would have been possible for Respondent No.2 to

examine the investment made on 23.10.2023 on the touchstone of

Section 27 of the Act. It is informed that the further program of

election has not been published. The direction to incorporate the

Petitioner in the voters list is plausible without stalling the

further process. This Court is aware of the law laid down by the

Division Bench in Dattatray Genaba Lole & Ors. Vs.
                                6                            902-WP-4564-2026

Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors. 2 It

is a fit case to cause interference in the impugned order.


13.      The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is

quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to include

the Petitioner in the voters list.

14.      The Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.15,000/- within a period

of one week to the High Court Bar Association Circuit Bench at

Kolhapur. The details of the account are mentioned below:

          Bank Name :               Shree Gajanan Nagri Sahakari
                                    Patsanstha, Marya, Kolhapur.
          Branch          :         Sahupuri, Kolhapur.
          A/c. No.        :         00032010001745.

15.      Additionally,        costs   of   Rs.10,000/-   shall   be   paid   to

Respondent No.3-District Central Co-operative Bank.

16.      I have gone through the findings recorded in Para No.12

and inter alia reliance on the judgment of in the matter of

Dhudhganga Vikas Seva Sanstha Maryadit Vs. District

Collector, Kolhapur3. I also propose to adopt the same course.


                                       [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


Suresh
2   (2021) 2 HCC (Bom) 612.
3   (2006) 5 SCC 250.