KUNDLIK SHAMRAO MULIK AND ORS.versusDISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY ALIAS DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND ORS.

                                                       67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc




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

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 4676 OF 2026

Kundlik Shamrao Mulik And Ors.                                      ...Petitioners
       Versus
District Co-operative Election Authority Alias
District Deputy Registrar And Ors.                               ...Respondents

                                  …...
Adv. Kalpesh Uttam Patil a/w Adv. Digambar Vilas Jadhav and Adv.
Rushikesh R. Chavan, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Adv. Ruturaj P. Pawar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Adv. Prashant Bhavake, for Respondent Nos.3 and 5.
                                  …..

                                        CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                        DATE     : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.

FINAL ORDER :

           Heard the litigating sides finally.

2.         Being aggrieved by concurrent finding of facts recorded by

Cooperative Court in allowing Case No. 106 of 2022 and thereafter

dismissing Appeal No. 78 of 2025 by the Cooperative Appellate Court,

in setting aside election of the petitioners, petition is preferred.

3.         Petitioners are original respondent Nos. 4 to 13, whose election

was questioned by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in Cooperative Case No.

106 of 2022. The election were conducted for the tenure 2021–2022 to

2026–2027. Its result was declared on 05.12.2021 declaring petitioners




     ZIP                                                                 1 of 6
                                                       67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc




and others as the returned candidates. The original respondent Nos. 14

to 16 were returned uncontested. The final voter list was prepared on

14.10.2021. The report was submitted by Deputy Registrar on

22.11.2021 disclosing that 23 voters were bogus, 11 were eligible but

excluded from the list, and 17 were dead. In this backdrop, the

submissions need to be appreciated.

4.         The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report

dated 22.11.2021 submitted by Deputy Registrar is inconsequential and

could not have been taken into account because the voter list was

finalized on 14.10.2021. It is submitted that the decisions of both

Courts below are rendered without hearing those 23 voters who are

castigated to be bogus. It is further submitted that the provisional voter

list was not ever challenged by the respondents and the respondents are

estopped from raising any grievance in the election petition.

5.         It is further submitted that Cooperative Court had no jurisdiction

to consider as to whether the voters were bogus and as to whether

genuine ones were excluded. It is further submitted that without

examining register in Form ‘I’ and ‘J’, half-heartedly the decisions are

rendered which are perverse. It is prayed that matter should have been

remanded by the Appellate Court.

6.         Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would

submit that Cooperative Court had jurisdiction under Section 91 of the



     ZIP                                                                 2 of 6
                                                    67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc




Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Act” for the sake of convenience and brevity) to examine as to

whether the members were eligible or not. The concurrent finding of

facts have been recorded, which are well-founded. It is further

submitted that term of the petitioners is expiring in December - 2026

and no interference is called for.

7.         The Appellate Court has recorded finding that 23 voters were

illegally enrolled and they were not made party. The report was

submitted by Deputy Registrar on 22.11.2021, which is fallout of the

inquiry conducted by him in pursuance of the complaint received for

illegal enrollment. The report has not been challenged by the

petitioners. The Cooperative Court is empowered to look into prima

facie material regarding membership of the voter. They cannot be said

to be necessary parties for adjudicating the issue as to the validity of the

election. No relief could have been claimed against them. I am of the

considered view that they are neither necessary party nor proper party

to decide the controversy. I find no merit in the submission of learned

counsel, Mr. Kalpesh Patil.

8.         The voter list was finalized on 14.10.2021 in which 23 bogus

voters are incorporated. It is always open for the Court to examine

eligibility of the voters. The inquiry contemplated at the stage of

preparation of the voters list is summary in nature. The objective in-



     ZIP                                                              3 of 6
                                                        67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc




depth inquiry can be conducted in a dispute under Section 91 of the

Act. If in the full-fledged trial it is revealed that couple of voters are

bogus, or couple of them are genuine but not included in the list, the

earlier finalized list would not be an impediment.

9.          Both Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of facts.

Both the Courts below have taken plausible and reasonable view. The

election of the petitioners is vitiated for not following due procedure of

law. I do not find any perversity or patent illegality in those findings.

10.         Both courts below have recorded findings in respect of the

eligibility of those 23 members considering the audit report and oral

evidence. The register in Form ‘I’ and ‘J’ cannot be the only evidence to

disclose illegal enrollment or illegal exclusion of 11 members. The

necessary documentary evidence has been considered for excluding

eligible voters and including ineligible persons. I find no reasons to

interfere in the impugned judgment and orders.

11.         The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the

judgment of learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the case of

Devaraj Bharath Bhushan Versus K. Moorthy and Ors. 1 to buttress that

once the suit is found to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the

question of deciding other issues would not arise. I have already

observed that the bogus voters cannot be said to be necessary parties for


1    2020 SCC OnLine Mad 172.



      ZIP                                                                 4 of 6
                                                   67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc




deciding the issue germane in the dispute. The judgment cited would

not be applicable to the present case.

12.         Undisputedly, the term of the present body is expiring in

December - 2026. The election is vitiated due to bogus voting and

exclusion of eligible persons. No prejudice would be caused to anybody

if the petitioners are kept away from administration. They have almost

enjoyed whole tenure. On that account also, I do not propose to

interfere in the impugned judgment.

13.         The Writ Petition is dismissed.



                                              [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]



14.         After pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the

petitioners prays for continuation of the order of status quo for the

period of four weeks, so as to enable the petitioners to approach the

Apex Court. It is submitted that the status quo was in operation till

21.09.2026, which is reflected from the operative part of the impugned

judgment dated 18.08.2026.

15.         The request is opposed by the respondents on the ground that

both the Courts below have decided against the petitioner. In any case,

the term was to expire in December - 2026. The copy of order dated

08.09.2026 is placed on record to show that new committee is




      ZIP                                                            5 of 6
                                                    67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc




appointed under Section 77(A)(1)(ii) of the Act and the committee is

expected to take charge today.

16.         Both the Courts below have concurrently decided against the

petitioners. The new committee is supposed to take charge as per order

dated 08.09.2026 passed by Assistant Registrar, Kolhapur. I am not

inclined to accept the request of the petitioners. It stands rejected.



                                              [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




      ZIP                                                             6 of 6