Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHAIKH HUZAIF SHAIKH FAROKversusSHRI KISHOR JAGANNATHRAO SHITOLE AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petitioner lacks locus standi to object under Rule 11, and the objection is not maintainable, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner challenged the order of the District Cooperative Election Officer that rejected his objection to the inclusion of Respondent No. 1 in the provisional voters list for the Aurangabad District Central Cooperative Bank election. He argued that the resolution nominating Respondent No. 1 was passed on 10 March 2026, before the permissible window (11 March 2026 to 9 April 2026) prescribed in the election notification, and therefore invalid. The respondents contended that the petitioner, not being a voter or authorized representative of any member society, had no locus standi under Rule 11 of the 2014 Cooperative Election Rules, and that a later resolution dated 20 March 2026, submitted on 7 April 2026, cured any defect. The court examined the notification, the timing of the resolutions, and the statutory requirement that objections be filed only by a member or authorized representative of the concerned society. Finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such standing and that the later resolution was duly considered, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner has locus standi to raise an objection under Rule 11 of the 2014 Cooperative Election Rules.
  • Whether the resolution dated 10 March 2026 is invalid under the election notification, rendering the inclusion of Respondent No. 1 unlawful.
  • Whether the subsequent resolution dated 20 March 2026 cures the defect and validates the inclusion of Respondent No. 1 in the provisional voters list.

Subjects

  • Cooperative election
  • Voter list
  • Locus standi
  • Resolution validity
  • Rule 11
  • Cooperative bank election

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:22006
                                                                                  WP-5366-2026.odt




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                               CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5366 OF 2026
          Shaikh Huzaif Shaikh Farok                                     ...Petitioner
                   Versus
          Shri Kishor Jagannathrao Shitole and Others          ...Respondents
                                                  ***
          • Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner
          • Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. A. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the
            Respondent No. 1
          • Mr. S. K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
          • Mr. P. B. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
                                                  ***
                                                      CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J
                                                              (VACATION COURT)

                                                      DATE      : MAY 28, 2026
          P. C :

          1.                The Petitioner impugns order dated 18-05-2026 passed by District

          Cooperative Election Officer and Divisional Joint Register Cooperative Societies,

          Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar / Respondent No. 2, whereby Petitioner's objection to

          include name of Respondent No. 1 in list of voters for election of Aurangabad

          District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd (for short ‘ DCC Bank’), has been rejected.


          2.                The elections of Respondent No. 3 DCC Bank were due. The

          Respondent No. 2 Election Officer published notification dated 10-03-2026

          inviting resolutions from member societies thereby nominating delegates. The

          Election Officer published provisional voters list. The Petitioner raised objection for

          inclusion of name of Respondent No. 1 from societies constituency. As per

          notification dated 10.03.2026 issued by District Election Officer, resolution


                                                PAGE 1 OF 4
                                                                       WP-5366-2026.odt




regarding nomination of delegate must have been passed during period from

11.03.2026 to 09.04.2026. However, resolution in favour of Respondent No. 1 is

passed on 10.03.2026. As such, there is no valid resolution for his nomination.

However, Respondent No.2 rejected petitioner's objection. Hence this Petition.


3.           Mr. Salunke, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner, submits that

Respondent No.1 is nominated as delegate of Deogiri Bank as per resolution dated

10.03.2026 of the member society. Accordingly, his name is included in provisional

voters list. Admittedly, notice convening meeting dated 10.03.2026 was issued on

02.03.2026. The agenda to select delegate was taken on the spot. When Petitioner

raised objection for inclusion of name of Respondent No.1 on basis of resolution

dated 10.03.2026, false record is created to show that second resolution dated

20.03.2026 was passed nominating Respondent No. 1 as delegate of member

society/Deogiri Bank. The resolution dated 20.03.2026 was never submitted to

competent authority and record is created to cure defect in connivance with

concerned officers.


4.           Per contra, Mr. Hon, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

Respondent No. 1, and Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent

No. 2, submits that Petitioner has no locus standi to raise objection regarding

inclusion of name of Respondent No. 1 in provisional voters list. He is neither voter

nor nominee of member society for election of DCC Bank. Rule 11(1) of Rules of

2014 prescribes for objection only by voter or representative of member society.


                                    PAGE 2 OF 4
                                                                        WP-5366-2026.odt




Petitioner being unconcerned with DCC Bank do not have locus to invoke Rule 11

of Rules of 2014.


5.            Mr. Hon, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1,

would further submit that resolution dated 20.03.2026 nominating Respondent No.

1 as delegate of DCC Bank was submitted before competent authority on

07.04.2026. Eventually, it was forwarded to Respondent No. 2 Election Officer.


6.            The notification dated 10.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. 2

prescribes that member society shall furnish resolution regarding appointment of

representatives/delegates with Deputy/Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies

during period from 11.03.2026 to 09.04.2026. Clause 8 of notification specifies that

resolution passed before 11.03.2026 nominating delegates shall not be treated as

valid. In light of aforesaid clause, Mr. Salunke, learned Advocate for Petitioner,

endeavors to point out that name of Respondent No. 1 is included in provisional

voters list on basis of resolution dated 10.03.2026, which is contrary to stipulations

in notification. He would further submit that even Respondent No. 1 has admitted

the fact that resolution nominating him as delegate was passed on 10.03.2026.


7.            The perusal of record indicates that on 10.03.2026 a resolution was

passed whereby name of Respondent No. 1 was nominated as delegate at election of

DCC Bank. However, after publication of notification, Board of Directors passed

another resolution dated 20.03.2026, reiterating nomination of Respondent No.1

being delegate at election of DCC Bank. The copy of resolution was submitted to

                                     PAGE 3 OF 4
                                                                         WP-5366-2026.odt




Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 07.04.2026 and same has been

considered for purpose of incorporating name of Respondent No. 1 as delegatee of

member society. In that view of matter, only because previously resolution dated

10.03.2026 was passed, inclusion of name of Respondent No.1 in provisional voters

list on basis of subsequent resolution dated 20.03.2026 cannot be faulted with.


8.            Pertinently, nomination of Respondent No.1 is not objected by any

member of society or nominee of member society of DCC Bank. The Petitioner has

not clarified his status and locus standi to raise objection to nomination of

Respondent No.1. The Rule 11 of Rules of 2014 prescribes for raising objection by

any member of Society concerned, who is voter or any representative authorized to

vote on behalf of society. Clause 2 of Rule 11 stipulates that objection shall be by any

member of society concerned, by way of separate petition presented to the District

Cooperative Election Officer. Looking to scheme of election rules, objection, if any,

in terms of Rule 11 can be entertained only at behest of member of society

concerned or representative authorized to vote on behalf of society. The Petitioner

has not clarified aforesaid aspect either in his objection tendered before Respondent

No.2 or in pleading of this Petition. On this count also, Writ Petition is not worthy

of consideration.


9.            In that view of matter, Writ Petition stands rejected.



                                                (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Umesh


                                      PAGE 4 OF 4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.