Bombay High Court

WATHAR BUDRUK VIVIDH KARYAKARI SEVA SAHAKARI SOCIETY LTD. THR. CHAIRMANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. CO-OPERATIVE MINISTRY OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the Returning Officer's decision was correct and the petition must be dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Wathar Budruk Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., challenged an order dated 07‑09‑2026 that rejected its nomination on the ground that the resolution authorizing the nomination was filed after the prescribed cut‑off date. The petition did not produce any board resolution authorizing the filing of the writ petition. The court noted that the managing board’s first meeting on 03‑08‑2026 failed to achieve quorum, and the resolution was finally presented on 13‑08‑2026, which was beyond the deadline of 05‑08‑2026. The Returning Officer correctly applied the statutory time‑limit and there is no provision for condoning such delay. Consequently, the court found no basis to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Returning Officer's rejection of the petitioner's nomination for being filed beyond the statutory cut‑off date can be set aside
Whether the delay in presenting the required board resolution can be condoned

Subjects

nomination
cut‑off date
condonation of delay
co‑operative society
electoral procedure
board resolution
quorum

Judgment

                     1                       506-WP-4589-2026 (C)

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
              WRIT PETITION NO. 4589 OF 2026
Wathar Budruk Vividh Karyakari
Seva Sahakari Society Ltd.
Through Chairman                              …...Petitioner
      VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through
Co-operative Ministry Of Maharashtra & Ors. .....Respondents
                               ...
Mr. Kiran Phakade with Mr. Arjun Mohite, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Ruturaj Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Santosh Jadhav, “B” Panel advocate for the Respondent Nos.1
and 3-State.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.4-State.
                                ...
                  CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                   DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

ORDER :

.      Heard both sides.

2.     The order dated 07.09.2026 is under challenge, rejecting

the nomination of the Petitioner on the ground that it was

presented beyond the cut-off date.

3.     The memo of the Writ Petition does not spell out any

resolution or authorization to file and prosecute the Petition.

Neither is any resolution produced on record to demonstrate that

any authorization is given.
                       2                        506-WP-4589-2026 (C)

4.       The time for presenting the resolution was from 07.07.2026

to 05.08.2026. The first meeting of the Managing Board was

conducted on 03.08.2026, appointing the Petitioner, but for want

of sufficient quorum, the resolution could not be passed.

Thereafter, on 08.08.2026, the meeting was convened and the

appointment of the Petitioner was reiterated. The resolution was

presented on 13.08.2026, which was beyond the stipulated time.

5.       The Returning Officer has rightly taken a view, and there

is no provision to condone delay or to permit the party to comply

with the requirement after the cut-off date.

6.       I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.




                               [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


Suresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…