SHAIKH HUZAIF SHAIKH FAROKversusSHRI ATUL MORESHWAR SAVE

2026:BHC-AUG:22014
                                                                                  WP-5368-2026.odt




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5368 OF 2026

          Shaikh Huzaif Shaikh Farok                                     ...Petitioner

                   Versus

          Shri Atul Moreshwar Save 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 to


                                                PAGE 1 OF 5
                                                                        WP-5368-2026.odt




inclusion of name of Respondent No. 1 from constituency of non-agricultural

societies contending that Respondent No. 1 is not a simple member of Shankar

Maharshi Annasaheb P. K. Patil Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha, Nageshwarwadi (for

short ‘P. K. Anna Society’). He is neither elected as a member nor director of said

society. However, he is appointed as delegate and included in provisional voters list.

The Respondent No. 1 justified his nomination as delegate of P. K. Anna Society on

ground that he has been appointed as committee member vide resolution No. 2

dated 15.05.2022 passed by Society. He has been co-opted as expert director.

Accordingly, he has been nominated as delegate vide resolution dated 05.04.2026.

The Respondent No. 2 rejected Petitioner's objection observing that issue of

membership of Respondent No. 1 cannot be gone into under Rule 11 of

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (for short

‘Rules of 2014’).


3.            Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner, submits

that Respondent no. 1 is not eligible to vote and contest elections being expert co-

opted member in terms of bye-laws of societies. Proviso 10 of Section 73 AAA(1)

specifically stipulates that expert director has no right to vote at any election of

society and he shall not be eligible to be elected as office bearer of committee. The

Respondent No. 2 ignored said legal position and failed to judiciously exercise

jurisdiction vested with him under Rule 11 of Election Rules.


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


                                     PAGE 2 OF 5
                                                                             WP-5368-2026.odt




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

No.2, supports impugned order. According to them, there is no prohibition under

law to appoint a co-opted member and expert director as delegate of society,

although he has no right to vote in the election of primary society. Mr. Hon, learned

Senior Advocate, raises serious objection as to locus of Petitioner to file objection to

provisional list of voters, particularly inclusion of name of Respondent No. 1.


5.            Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates

appearing for respective parties and after going through reasoning adopted by

Respondent No. 2 in impugned order, issue that arises for consideration in this

Petition is whether Petitioner has locus standi to invoke jurisdiction of Respondent

No. 2 under Rule 11 of Rules of 2014 and whether co-opted member/director can

be appointed as delegate of member society at election of DCC Bank, particularly

when in light of Proviso 10, expert director has no right to vote at any election of

society or he is not eligible to be elected as office bearer of committee.


6.            Undisputedly, P. K. Anna Society is member society of Respondent

No. 3 DCC Bank. The Election Officer had published a proclamation dated

10.03.2026 inviting resolutions containing name of delegate of member societies for

inclusion in voters' list of DCC Bank. The name of Respondent No. 1 was included

in provisional voters' list being delegate of P. K. Anna Society. The Petitioner raised

objection under Rule 11 of Rules of 2014 for such inclusion.




                                      PAGE 3 OF 5
                                                                         WP-5368-2026.odt




              Sub-rule 1 of Rule 11 of Rules of 2014 reads thus:

            (1) When any provisional list of voters is published for inviting
            claims and objections, any omission or error in respect of name or
            address or other particulars in the list may be brought to the
            notice of the District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or
            Ward Co-operative Election Officer in writing by any member of
            the society concerned, who is a voter or any representative
            authorized to vote on behalf of such society during office hours
            within ten days from the date of publication of the provisional list
            of voters.

7.            The plain reading of aforesaid provision shows that any member of

society concerned, who is a voter or any representative, authorized to vote on behalf

of Society can raise objection in respect of name in provisional list of voters. The

Petitioner has referred himself as labour. He has not clarified whether he is member

of society or representative of any member society of DCC Bank. This Court holds

that Petition sans necessary particulars to demonstrate locus standi of Petitioner to

raise objection under Rule 11 of Rules of 2014 and even for filing present Writ

Petition.


8.            Even without going into aforesaid controversy, it is difficult to hold

that inclusion of name of Respondent No. 1 in list of voters is bad in law or

unsustainable. It is true that Section 73(AAA) deals with constitution of

committees. The proviso 10 prescribes that expert director shall not have right to

vote at election of society and shall not be eligible to be elected as office bearer of

committee. However, there is no bar to nominate co-opted member or expert

director be appointed as delegate of society. From language of Rule 10 of Rules of


                                      PAGE 4 OF 5
                                                                          WP-5368-2026.odt




2014, it is not discernible that only elected member can be appointed or nominated

as representative/delegate of society. It cannot be disputed that Respondent No. 1

being co-opted expert director, has no right to vote at election of society or elected as

office bearers of committee, but no prohibition is found in scheme of Act to

nominate him as delegate/representative of the society at the election of DCC Bank.


9.            In result, this Court finds no merit in Petition. Hence, Writ Petition

stands dismissed.



                                                (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Umesh




                                      PAGE 5 OF 5