Bombay High Court
SUBHASH VITTHAL PAWARversusDISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that they were filed out of time and that any challenge to the inclusion of the defaulting societies must be pursued in substantive election proceedings after the election concludes.
Summary
The petitioners filed multiple writ petitions challenging the inclusion of two defaulting Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies (respondents 2 and 3) in the voters list for the election of District Centre Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Satara. The Returning Officer had rejected their objections on 7 September 2026, and the final voters list was published on 11 September 2026. The petitioners filed the writ petitions on 23 September 2026, after the election programme had already been announced and the nomination period was underway. The Court examined the interpretation of Section 27(10) and Section 73(CA) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act and the procedural requirements under Rule 11 of the 2014 Rules, but held that the matters were intricate and required full‑fledged substantive proceedings. Because the petitions were filed belatedly and the election process was already in progress, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to raise their grievance in an appropriate election petition after the election concludes.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petitions challenging the inclusion of defaulting societies in the voters list are maintainable when filed after the election process has commenced.
- Whether Section 27(10) and Section 73(CA) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act render a defaulting primary society or its nominated member ineligible to vote.
- Whether the Returning Officer erred in interpreting the statutory provisions and in rejecting the petitioners' objections.
- Whether the Court can intervene at this stage without disturbing the election programme.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act — s. 27(10), 73(CA)
- Rules of 2014 (MCS Rules) — s. Rule 11, Rule 78
Subjects
- cooperative societies
- election
- voters list
- defaulting society
- Section 27(10)
- Section 73(CA)
- writ petition
- procedural delay
- natural justice
Judgment
WP 4848 26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
60 WRIT PETITION NO. 4834 OF 2026
SHASHIKANT MADHUKAR PATIL
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
61 WRIT PETITION NO. 4836 OF 2026
NARAYAN RAMCHANDRA SATRE
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
62 WRIT PETITION NO. 4842 OF 2026
NARAYAN RAMCHANDRA SATRE
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
63 WRIT PETITION NO. 4843 OF 2026
ANANDA LAXMAN SAKPAL
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
64 WRIT PETITION NO. 4848 OF 2026
ANANDA LAXMAN SAKPAL
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
65 WRIT PETITION NO. 4849 OF 2026
INDRAJIT SANJAY PATIL
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
1/7
WP 4848 26.odt
…
66 WRIT PETITION NO. 4850 OF 2026
SUBHASH VITTHAL PAWAR
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
67 WRIT PETITION NO. 4851 OF 2026
SHASHIKANT MADHUKAR PATIL
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
68 WRIT PETITION NO. 4852 OF 2026
INDRAJIT SANJAY PATIL
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
69 WRIT PETITION NO. 4853 OF 2026
SUBHASH VITTHAL PAWAR
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
70 WRIT PETITION NO. 4854 OF 2026
UTTAM PANDURANG PAWAR
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
71 WRIT PETITION NO. 4855 OF 2026
UTTAM PANDUDRANG PAWAR
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
72 WRIT PETITION NO. 4856 OF 2026
ANANDA LAXMAN SAKPAL
2/7
WP 4848 26.odt
VERSUS
DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.
…
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Nikhil Wadikar a/w Adv.Dhananjay A. Utture
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Louis S. Shah i/by Mr. Rushabh D.
Phade
Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. S.S. Patwardhan (through V.C.)
a/w Adv. Bhooshan Mandlik a/w Adv. Indrajit Chavan a/w Adv. Shivam M.
Walekar and Adv. Sameeta Jankar
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Ruturaj P. Pawar
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 29.09.2026
FINAL ORDER :
Heard both sides finally, considering exigency in the matter.
2. Relevant facts and circumstances are common and therefore the
petitions are heard together and dealt with by common order.
3. The petitioners are questioning distinct orders dated 07.09.2026
passed by the Returning Officer, overruling their objection for inclusion of
respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the voters list. The election process pertains to
respondent no. 1 District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Satara. Respondent no. 2-
Societies are Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies, which are
its members.
4. The respondent no. 4 Election Officer on 30.06.2026 declared the
programme for preparation of voters list. The Member Primary Co-
operative Societies were called upon to submit resolution between
07.07.2026 to 05.08.2026. In the provisional voters list, respondent no. 2
and 3 were included, which was objected by the petitioners in writing within
the stipulated period. The objections are overruled holding that they are
eligible.
3/7
WP 4848 26.odt
5. Undisputedly, final voters list contained 104 members including
respondent nos. 2 and 3 in each petition. The list of 19 member Primary
Co-operative Societies is published, which are defaulters of respondent no.
1-Bank.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Wadikar submits that
petitioners took timely objection against respondent nos. 2 and 3 for their
deletion being defaulter and ineligible to participate in the election process,
but the Returning Officer misconstrued the provisions of law clause 2 of
letter dated 30.06.2026. It is submitted that by implication of Section
27(10) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (herein after referred
to as the MCS Act), once the member Primary Society is disqualified being
defaulter, consequentially, nominating any person on its behalf must be
treated to be ineligible. It is submitted that explanation to Section 73(CA) is
inclusive. Sub clause 2 of Clause (f) of the explanation to Section 73(CA)(1)
covers even a member who is not office bearer of a defaulting society. It is
submitted that the doctorine of mutuality is violated while interpreting the
provision of law in the impugned order. Impugned order is stated to be
perverse and unsustainable as it defies logic.
7. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents have
raised preliminary objection for entertaining the petitions after
commencement of the election process. The election programme is placed
on record. It is submitted that impugned orders were passed on 07.09.2026
and petitions were filed on 23.09.2026 after period of 15 days. It is further
submitted that intricate of law and facts are involved in the matter and
proper remedy for the petitioner is to take recourse to substantive
proceedings challenging the election. It is further submitted that the
Returning Officer has rightly interpreted Section 27(10) and Section
73(CA). The defaulting Primary Agricultural Credit Societies is a separate
class and therefore its participation or representation in the election process
is not excluded by the statute.
4/7
WP 4848 26.odt
8. While replying the preliminary objections raised by the respondents,
the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Wadikar would vehemently submit
that due to holidays and festival of Ganesh Ustav, it was not possible for the
petitioners to approach promptly. After filing, the petitions are promptly
circulated before the Court. It is submitted that without stalling the election
process, interference of this Court is possible by excluding ineligible
respondents from the voters list. There are 13 defaulter societies who are
ineligible to participate in the process and the challenge raised in the
petitions is of a public importance and need to be entertained relegating the
parties to the election petition would perpetuate the illegality.
9. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and status of
the election process, this Court has to be skeptical in causing any
indulgence. I am guided by law laid down by High Court in the matter of
Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others;
1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 543 and that of Division Bench in case of Dattatraya
Genaba Lole and others Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies
and others; 2021 SCC Online Bom 4579.
10. The impugned orders are passed on 07.09.2026 by the Returning
Officer and the petitions are filed on 23.09.2026, after a period of 15 days.
No explanation is put forth in the petitions as to why those are not filed
promptly. It was possible for them to approach the court immediately after
07.09.2026, as this Court was dealing with similar types of petitions of
different Cooperative Societies. Considering the challenge raised to the
orders passed by the Returning Officer under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2014, I
am unable to accept the oral explanation tendered by the counsel for the
petitioners.
11. It is relevant to notice that the final voters list was published on
11.09.2026. On 21.09.2026, the election programme was published by the
competent authority. As per the programme, time for submitting the
5/7
WP 4848 26.odt
nomination is prescribed as 25.09.2026 to 01.10.2026. The final list of
nominated candidate is to be published on 01.10.2026. The scrutiny of the
nomination is scheduled on 05.10.2026. The election process has
commenced and interference at this stage of the proceeding is
impermissible. The adjudication on merits of the matter is likely to disturb
the election programme and likely to create complications. In such a
situation, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion that too at the instance
of the petitioners who approached the Court belatedly.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has painstakingly drawn my
attention to Section 27(10) and Section 73(CA) of the MCS Act. He has
tried to impress upon me that interpretation drawn by the Returning Officer
is erroneous. Reliance is also made to the judgment of the coordinate bench
in Writ Petition No. 5478/2026 to buttress that not only defaulting Primary
Society is ineligible but its nominated member is also ineligible to be voter.
13. Learned counsel Mr. Patvardhan appearing for respondent nos. 2 and
3 has also been drawn my attention to the interpretation of the relevant
provisions of law. He refers to Rule 78 of the MCS Act to fortify the
preliminary objection. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the
division bench of this Court in case of Prakash Bhanudas Kavade and others
Vs. Nashik District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd and others; 2015 (5)
Mh.L.J.
14. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties I am of the
considered view that intricate issues of interpretation of law is involved in
the matter, which need to be dealt with in full fledged substantive
proceedings. It is not possible for this Court to express any opinion. The
issues raised in the petitions are kept open for agitating them before
appropriate form in election petition.
15. The Returning Officer has a summary jurisdiction while dealing with
the objections under Rule 11 of Rules of 2014. The intricate questions on
6/7
WP 4848 26.odt
facts and law cannot be adjudicated in such enquiry. I do not find that any
mandatory procedure is violated by him or impugned orders are against
principles of natural justice. Prima facie, I am of the view that no glaring
perversity or illegality is noticed in the impugned order. It is clarified that
no final opinion is expressed on the submissions of the parties and the
observations recorded today would not be an impediment for deciding the
challenge, if raised before competent forum.
16. For the reasons stated above, I find that no relief can be granted to the
petitioners. The writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is permissible for
them to agitate their grievance by challenging the impugned orders before
competent forum after conclusion of the election process.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
mkd/-
7/7
Checking your session…