Bombay High Court

LOKHIT MA. GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARY. BUKKALGUDAversusTHE STATE CO- OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY M.S. PUNE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The District Co‑operative Election Officer must include the petitioner’s name in the voters list, and the writ petition is allowed.

Summary

The petitioner, Lokhit Ma. Grahak Sahakari Sanstha, a member society of the Central Co-operative Bank (ADCC Bank), filed a writ petition challenging the exclusion of its name from the provisional voters list for the bank's board elections. The exclusion resulted from the society's manager failing to submit a duly passed resolution to the Deputy Registrar by the prescribed deadline. The petitioner raised an objection under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, but the District Co‑operative Election Officer rejected it. The court examined whether the officer has the power under Rule 10(4) and Rule 11 to correct the omission and whether the petitioner’s democratic right to participate is being infringed. Relying on a prior decision (Adiwasi Seva Sahakari Sansth v. Collector), the court held that a pragmatic approach requires inclusion of the petitioner’s name. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, directing the respondent to include the petitioner in the voters list.

Issues considered

Whether the omission of the petitioner society’s name from the provisional voters list, due to a procedural lapse by its manager, violates its right to participate in the election of the ADCC Bank’s board.
Whether the District Co‑operative Election Officer has jurisdiction under Rule 10(4) and Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 to rectify the omission and include the petitioner in the final voters list.
Whether the High Court can intervene by a writ to compel inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the voters list.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 — s. Rule 10(4), Rule 11

Subjects

Co-operative societies
Voters list
Election law
Procedural lapse
Rule 11
Democratic rights
Writ petition
ADCC Bank

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:21998
938-wp-5330-2026.odt
(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2026

Lokhit Ma. Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Mary. Bukkalguda
VERSUS
The State Co- Operative Election Authority M.s. Pune And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi h/f Mr. Kawale
Laxman H.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. S.K. Kadam
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pathade Vishweshwar Haribhau
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
(VACATION COURT)
DATED : MAY 26, 2026

ORDER :-

1. Present writ petition impugns order dated 04.05.2026

passed by respondent no.2/District Co-operative Election Officer and

Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar, thereby rejecting application of petitioner-society to

include petitioner’s name in voters list of respondent no.3 of

Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank, Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar.

2. The petitioner is a member society of respondent no.3 –

ADCC Bank. The elections of board of directors of respondent no.3 –

bank are due. On 06.03.2026, respondent no.2 issued a notification

requiring member societies to submit resolution appointing its

delegate/representative for preparation of provisional voters list. On

05.04.2026, petitioner-society passed resolution nominating its
938-wp-5330-2026.odt
(2)

representative to participate in election of respondent no.3 – bank.

Unfortunately, Manager of society failed to submit resolution in office

of Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies. On 27.04.2026,

respondent no.2 published provisional voters list. However, name of

petitioner – society was not included in list. On inquiry, petitioner

came to know that Manager of society failed to submit resolution on

or before 09.04.2026 in office of Deputy Registrar. Hence, name of

petitioner-society is not incorporated in provisional list. On

28.04.2026, petitioner made application to respondent no.2 to

include name of petitioner - society in voters list. However, same has

been rejected vide order dated 04.05.2026.

3. Perusal of record tendered into service before this Court

shows that petitioner – society had passed resolution nominating its

delegate to participate in election of managing committee of ADCC

Bank. Unfortunately, communication in this regard was not made to

competent authority. Eventually, name of petitioner – society was

missed from inclusion in provisional voters list of ADCC Bank. It is

not disputed that petitioner is a member society of ADCC Bank. Rule

11 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee)

Rules, 2014 provides for claims and objections to provisional voters

list and final list of voters for societies. The objection regarding any

omission or error in respect of name or address or other particulars in

list may be brought to the notice of District Co-operative Election
938-wp-5330-2026.odt
(3)

Officer in writing, who after such inquiry as deemed necessary in this

regard, consider each claim or objection and give its decision thereon

and prepare final list of voters.

4. The petitioner had accordingly raised objection before

respondent no.2. However, same has been rejected. Apparently,

effect of non-inclusion of petitioner’s name in provisional voters list

would adversely affect petitioner’s substantive right to participate in

election of ADCC Bank. It is not disputed before this Court that

petitioner is a member society and entitled to participate in election.

The society had already passed a resolution as per notification

published by respondent no.2 nominating its representative for

participating in election of ADCC Bank. The failure to communicate

same was a sheer mistake on part of Manager of society for which

entire society shall not suffer.

5. The respondent no.2 has adequate powers to take

corrective steps while preparing final voters list. In this backdrop,

keeping in mind democratic set up and right of petitioner’s society to

participate in election of federal society, respondent no.2 ought to

have adopted pragmatic approach and exercised jurisdiction vested

with him in terms of Rule 10(4) read with Rule 11 of Rules of 2014.

The inclusion of petitioner’s name in voters list would better serve

democratic object instead of frustrating petitioner’s right to

participate in election giving importance to technicalities.
938-wp-5330-2026.odt
(4)

6. In similar set of facts, this Court in case of Adiwasi Seva

Sahakari Sansth Vs. Hon’ble Collector and Anr reported in 2011 (5)

Mh.L.J. 745, entertained writ petition against non-inclusion of name

of representative of petitioner by taking pragmatic view of matter. In

present case also, case is made out to entertain writ petition.

7. In result, writ petition deserves positive consideration.

Hence, allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C).

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Mujaheed//

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…