Bombay High Court
ABDUL SATTAR ABDUL NABIversusDILIP B. BANKAR PATIL AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The election officer correctly concluded that the petitioners were not valid members on the qualifying date, and their exclusion from the voters list was lawful.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order by the District Co‑operative Election Officer that excluded their names from the provisional voters list for the Aurangabad District Central Co‑operative Bank election. They argued that a resolution passed on 29‑02‑2024 admitted them as members, and that the election officer lacked jurisdiction to question the validity of their membership. The respondents contended that the petitioners had not paid the required admission fees and share capital, and that the register of members—prima facie evidence under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act—showed their admission only on 12‑04‑2024, after the qualifying date of 21‑03‑2024. The court examined the provisions of Sections 27, 38 and 40 of the Act and held that the petitioners were not valid members on the qualifying date, and therefore were ineligible to be listed as voters. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as being without merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the election officer could lawfully reject the inclusion of the petitioners in the provisional voters list on the ground that they were not valid members on the qualifying date.
- Whether a board resolution alone confers membership status, or whether payment of fees and entry in the register of members is required.
- Whether the register of members is prima facie evidence of the date of admission under Section 38 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 27, 38, 40, 72
Subjects
- co-operative societies
- membership eligibility
- voters list
- section 27
- section 38
- section 40
- provisional voters list
- election officer
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:22013
-1-
WP-5367-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5367 OF 2026
Abdul Sattar Abdul Nabi and Others … Petitioners
Versus
Dilip B. Bankar Patil and Others … Respondents
......
Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. A. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for
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)
DATED : 28th MAY, 2026.
ORDER :
1. The present petitioners are impugning order dated
18.05.2026 passed by District Co-operative Election Officer and
Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar, whereby objection filed by respondent no.1 to inclusion
of name of petitioners in the provisional voters list has been allowed.
2. The election of respondent no.3 – The Aurangabad District
Central Co-operative Bank Limited was declared and respondent no.2
District Co-operative Election Officer took steps for preparation of the
-2-
WP-5367-2026
voters list to hold the election. A notification dated 10.03.2026 was
published inviting Resolutions from member societies or individual
category members to include their names in the provisional voters list.
Respondent No.3 Bank supplied list of 80 individual members including
petitioners. Accordingly, the Election Officer published provisional list of
voters. Respondent no.1 raised objection against inclusion of name of
petitioners as individual members of the Bank. Respondent no.2 allowed
the objection by impugned order. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Advocate for petitioners submits
that, respondent no.2 acted arbitrarily. The petitioners were validly
admitted as members of DCC Bank. A Resolution No. 20 was passed by
the Bank in a meeting dated 29.02.2024 admitting petitioners as
members. The decision by General Body is final and supreme under
section 72 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Socities Act, 1960. The
Election Officer had no jurisdiction to go beyond the Resolution and
decide on the validity of the petitioners’ membership. Respondent no.2
while dealing with the objections against ruling parties, observed that he
had no power to go beyond Resolution, whereas, different view has been
adopted while deciding the objections against petitioners.
4. Per contra, Mr. V. D. Hon, learned Senior Advocate
-3-
WP-5367-2026
appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. S. K. Kadam, learned Advocate
for respondent No.2 supports impugned order contending that although
Resolution admitting petitioners as members is shown to have been
passed on 29.02.2024, there is nothing to show that the petitioners have
deposited the membership fee and amount of shares. Their names were
not appearing in the register of members maintained under section 38 of
the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The register of
members is prima facie evidence to show that the concerned person was
admitted to membership. The register of members shows that petitioners
have been admitted as members, after cut-off date. They were not
admitted as valid members as on 21.03.2024.
5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of record
tendered into service, it can be observed that, names of petitioners were
included in the provisional voters list. The objection was raised by
respondent no.1, who is representative/delegate of member society.
Section 27 of MCS Act, 1960 provides for voting powers of members. The
Sub clause 3(A) provides that an individual member of the society shall
not be eligible for voting in the affairs of that society for a period of two
years from the date of their enrollment as a member of such society.
-4-
WP-5367-2026
6. The notification issued by respondent no.2 for election of
respondent no.3 Bank stipulates 21.03.2026 as qualifying date for
inclusion in list of voters. Eventually, the individual members, who seek
enrollment in voters list, must have been admitted to membership of
society on or before 21.03.2024. The petitioners have relied on
Resolution dated 29.02.2024 passed by Board of Directors, admitting
them as members. Prima facie, the said Resolution cannot be disputed or
there is no reason to enter into the validity of such Resolution. Issue
which requires consideration is whether petitioners had acquired
membership pursuant to the Resolution by qualifying date.
7. Respondent No.2 observed that petitioners had applied for
membership during the period from 03.01.2024 to 28.01.2024 and
Resolution of the Board of Directors accepting their applications for
membership was passed on 29.02.2024. On 12.03.2024, petitioners were
directed to deposit admission fees and share amount. It is further
observed that, petitioners had not deposited amount of admission fees
and share amount along with application forms in terms of Bye-law nos.
8(a) and 9(a). Further, as on 31.03.2024, register of membership in
Forms ‘I’ and ‘J’ maintained by Bank depicts that petitioners have been
admitted as members on 12.04.2024. They deposited amount of
membership on 12.04.2024.
-5-
WP-5367-2026
8. Section 38 of MCS Act, 1960 speaks about register of
members. The register contains particulars of members, including date on
which each persons was admitted as member. Sub clause (2) of Section
38 of MCS Act, 1960 prescribes that register shall be prima facie evidence
of date on which any person was admitted to membership. Section 40 of
MCS Act, 1960 prescribes about admissibility of copies of entries in
evidence. In present case, extracts of register of membership in Forms ‘I’
and ‘J’ have been verified by respondent no.2 to reach to conclusion that
petitioners acquired membership on 12.04.2024.
9. In that view of matter, this court finds that respondent no.2
has rightly concluded that petitioners were not valid members on
qualifying date and refused their inclusion in final list of voters.
10. In result, Writ Petition being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Tandale
Checking your session…