Bombay High Court

GONDAWALE VIVIDH KARYAKARI SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT THR. SECRETARY SATISH KATTE AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CO-OPERATION, MARKETING, TEXTILES DEPT AND ORS

Disposal: Rejected

Holding

The Returning Officer was within his powers to reject the late resolution, and the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a cooperative society, filed a writ petition challenging the Returning Officer's order refusing to include its name in the provisional voters list because the required resolution was submitted after the statutory deadline. The petitioner argued that compelling circumstances prevented timely submission and that the administrator had informed the officer of the delay. The Respondents contended that there is no provision allowing the Returning Officer to condone such delay and that the deadline was clearly missed. The Court examined the statutory framework and noted that the Returning Officer lacks authority to accept late resolutions absent an enabling provision. It distinguished the earlier Akashwani case, holding that its facts were different and did not bind the present case. Consequently, the Court upheld the Returning Officer's order and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Returning Officer has the power to condone a delay in the submission of a resolution for inclusion in the provisional voters list.
Whether the petitioner can be incorporated in the provisional voters list despite missing the statutory deadline.
Whether the precedent set in Akashwani Durdarshan Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Mary. case is applicable to the present facts.

Subjects

provisional voters list
resolution deadline
condonation of delay
returning officer powers
cooperative society elections
writ petition

Judgment

4574-2026-WP.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 4574 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by Gondawale Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari … Petitioner
UDAY UDAY
SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP Sanstha Maryadit
Date:
JAGTAP 2026.09.17
16:09:09
+0530 Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
………….
Mr. Rahul Khot a/w Nitin Nikam i/b Harsh Arun Khot for the Petitioner
Mr. Ruturaj Pawar for respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 4.
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
FINAL ORDER :

. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner is challenging order dated 07.09.2026 passed by the

Returning Officer refusing to incorporate its name in the provisional

voters list as the Resolution was not submitted with the stipulated period.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there were

compelling circumstances which prevented the petitioner to present

Resolution within stipulated period. Its administrator had already

informed the Returning Officer on 04.08.2026 regarding inability which

should have been accepted. No fault is attributed to the petitioner for

not presenting the Resolution within stipulated period. My attention is

Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 3
4574-2026-WP.doc

adverted to the documents to indicate that the result was declared on

02.08.2026. The Resolution was passed on 16.08.2026 and it was

submitted on 19.08.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent – Returning Officer would

submit that there is no provision to condone the delay. The Resolution

was to be submitted on or before 05.08.2026 which was submitted on

19.08.2026. He would place on record the public notice dated

30.06.2026 and my attention is invited to Clause 5 which spells out the

situation when the primary society has no elected body and is looked

after by the Administrator.

5. By public notification dated 30.06.2026, it was informed by the Co-

operative District Election Officer that the Resolutions for nominating the

representative was to be submitted from 07.07.2026 to 05.08.2026. The

earlier body of the petitioner was dissolved on 23.01.2026. The

Administrator was looking after the petitioner. The election was

conducted and result was declared on 02.08.2026. The Resolution was

passed on 26.08.2026 by the newly appointed body which is submitted

on 19.08.2026. It is evident that it was submitted beyond cut off date.

There is no enabling provision for the Returning Officer to accept any

Resolution which is passed and submitted after the cut off date.

Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 3
4574-2026-WP.doc

I find that the impugned order is rightly passed as it was not within the

realm of powers of Returning Officer to examine as to the circumstances

which prevented a particular primary society to submit the representation

within stipulated period.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of

the co-ordinate bench in Akashwani Durdarshan Karmachari Sahakari

Patsanstha Mary. Chh. Sambhajinagar Vs. State Co Operative Election

Authority, Pune and Ors. (2026) SCC OnLine Bom 4168. In that case,

the Resolution was to be submitted on 09.04.2026. The Resolution was

passed by 05.04.2026 but a copy thereof could not be placed before the

Authority in time. In that context, the co-ordinate bench recorded that

the Returning Officer had powers to take corrective steps. The facts of

that case are distinguishable from the case at hand. The judgment

would not inure to the benefit of the petitioner. I find no merit in the

petition.

7. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )

Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…