Bombay High Court

BHARAT BHASKARRAO DESHMUKHversusSTATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY MS AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The District Co‑operative Election Officer exceeded his jurisdiction; the order deleting the delegate's name is quashed.

Summary

The petitioners challenged an order of the District Co‑operative Election Officer that deleted the name of Bharat Deshmukh, nominated as delegate of a member society of the Aurangabad District Central Co‑operative Bank, from the provisional voters list. The society had passed a resolution on 01‑04‑2026 appointing Deshmukh after an earlier meeting on 28‑03‑2026 was adjourned for lack of quorum. Respondents 4‑9 objected to the resolution, and the election officer, invoking Rule 11 of the 2014 election rules, cancelled the nomination. The petitioners argued that the officer exceeded his jurisdiction and that any dispute over the validity of the society’s resolution must be pursued under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960. The Court held that the officer’s inquiry went beyond the limited scope of Rule 11 and that the proper remedy lies in the Co‑operative Court, thereby quashing the impugned order. The writ petition was allowed, restoring the delegate’s name on the voters list.

Issues considered

Whether the District Co‑operative Election Officer has jurisdiction to examine the validity of a society's resolution appointing a delegate under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014.
Whether objections to a delegate's nomination should be entertained under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 rather than by the election officer.
Whether the order deleting the delegate's name from the provisional voters list is liable to be set aside.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 91
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 — s. Rule 11(1)

Subjects

co-operative societies
election
delegate nomination
jurisdiction
Section 91
Rule 11
provisional voters list
quorum
bye-laws

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:22010
WP-5372-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.5372 OF 2026

1. Bharat Bhaskarrao Deshmukh,
Age : 62 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o. Alapurwadi, Post Shivoor,
Tal. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

2. The Secretary,
V. K. S. S. Shivoor,
Ta. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. … Petitioners

Versus

1. State Co-operative Election Authority,
Maharashtra State Pune,
Through its Commissioner.

2. District Co-operative Election Officer
and Divisional Joint Registrar Co-op. societies,
Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar.

3. Aurangabad District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
Aurangabad through its Managing Director.

4. Appasaheb Asaram Jadhav,
Age : 60 years, Occu.: Agri.,

5. Bhandas Revba Aadhav
Age : 55 years, Occu.: Agri.,

6. Ganesh Panditrao Khambayte
Age : 60 years, Occu.: Agri.,

7. Smt. Kamlabai Dhananjay Chudiwal
Age : 55 years, Occu.: Agri.,

8. Dilip Raghunath Jadhav
Age : 60 years, Occu. : Agri.,

9. Rajendra Saluba Varpe

PAGE 1 OF 6
WP-5372-2026.odt

Age : 55 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R.No. 4 to 9, R/o: Shivoor,
Ta. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. … Respondents

***
• Mr. K. F. Shingare, Advocate for the Petitioners.
• Mr. S. K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
• Mr. G. P. Darandale, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
• Mr. S. P. Tiwari and Mr. S. J. Gaike, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 9.

***
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J
(VACATION COURT)

DATE : MAY 28, 2026

ORDER :

1. The petitioners impugns order dated 18.05.2026 passed by

respondent no.2/District Co-operative Election Officer, thereby allowing objections

of respondent Nos.4 to 9 to nomination of petitioner no.1 as delegate at ensuing

election of respondent no.3/Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank (for

short, “ADCC Bank”).

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

The respondent no.2 issued Notification regarding election of respondent

no.3/ADCC Bank and invited member societies to nominate their delegates. The

petitioner no.2/society convened meeting dated 28.03.2026 for nominating its

representative/delegate. However, meeting was adjourned for want of Coram. Later

on, it was convened on 01.04.2026 in which Resolution was passed nominating

petitioner no.1 as delegate. Accordingly, proceedings of meeting dated 01.04.2026

PAGE 2 OF 6
WP-5372-2026.odt

alongwith Resolution was submitted to Assistant Registrar, Co-operative societies.

Eventually, petitioner no.1’s name was included in provisional voters list.

Respondent no.4 to 9 raised objection before respondent no.2 seeking cancellation

of Resolution dated 01.04.2026. Respondent no.2 pleased to upheld objection

under impugned order and directed deletion of petitioner no.1’s name from the

voters list.

3. Mr. Shingare, learned Advocate for petitioners submits that petitioner

no.1’s name was validly included in provisional voter’s list on basis of resolution of

society dated 01.04.2026. Respondent nos.4 to 9 want to raise challenge to validity

of Resolution. They have remedy to file dispute under Section 91 of Maharashtra

Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘MCS Act, 1960’). Respondent no.2 has

no jurisdiction to entertain such objection. The inquiry under Rule 11 of

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 is

extremely limited and it is not open to upset Resolution by delving into its validity

under bye-laws.

4. Per contra, Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate for appearing for respondent

nos. 4 to 9 and Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and

2 supports impugned order. They would submit that, meeting of society was

convened on 28.03.2026. However, notices were not duly served. In result,

meeting was dropped for want of Coram. The subsequent meeting dated

01.04.2026 was invalid in terms of bye-law No.9(5)(a).

PAGE 3 OF 6
WP-5372-2026.odt

5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates

appearing for respective parties and on perusal of record, it can be observed that,

petitioner no.1 has been nominated as delegate of petitioner no.2 society.

Accordingly, his name was included in provisional voters list for election of ADCC

Bank. Respondent no.4 to 9 raised objection regarding validity of Resolution

appointing petitioner no.1 as delegate of petitioner no.2 society. Undisputedly,

meeting was convened on 28.03.2026 for appointing delegate for ensuing election

of ADCC Bank. However, for want of Coram, it was dropped and next meeting was

held on 01.04.2026. The reasoning adopted in impugned order depicts that

respondent no.2 delved deep into validity of meeting dated 01.04.2026, resolution

passed therein and appointment of petitioner no.1 as delegate. The reference is

made to bye-law No.9(5)(a) of bye-laws of petitioner no.2 society.

6. Pertinently, it is not case that any other representative/delegate is

appointed on behalf of petitioner no.2 society. The net result of deleting name of

petitioner no.1 would be non-representation of petitioner no.2 society at the election

of ADCC Bank. In such case, where name of petitioner no.1 was included as

delegate on basis of resolution dated 01.04.2026, it was not open for the respondent

no.2 to delve into validity of meeting and consequential appointment of petitioner

no.1 as its representative. The Rule 11(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies

(Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 prescribed for limited inquiry into objection to

provisional voters list. It does not contemplate detailed inquiry, as objective is to

PAGE 4 OF 6
WP-5372-2026.odt

eliminate inadvertent omission or error in name, address or any other particulars of

members or delegates. Respondent no.2 can be said to be responsible for preparing

flawless voters list. However, there is nothing in Rules that empowers him to hold

detailed inquiry as to validity of Resolution appointing delegate of society. If any

member of society has objection as to validity to Resolution for want of Coram or

appropriate service of notice etc., his remedy lies under section 91 of the MCS Act,

1960.

7. Pertinently, it is not a dispute where under two Resolutions of same society

two different nominations were received. In such case, Election Officer would be

justified in inquiring into validity of Resolution to certain extent. The Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Kamlabai Vitthal Rohankar v. Additional

Collector & Ors.1, has observed as under :

“In any case, the issue regarding the legality of the meeting and
constitution of quorum are required to be decided under section 91
by the Co-operative Court by leading evidence and not by the
Assistant Registrar or the Collector and, therefore, we are of the
opinion that the resolution of the Managing Committee which is
acted upon by including the appellant's name in provisional voters'
list cannot be ignored unless and until it is set aside by the Court of
competent jurisdiction.”

8. The aforesaid observations are squarely applicable in facts of present

case. In this case, it can be observed that respondent no.2 has exceeded jurisdiction

while inquiring into validity of Resolution of society by which petitioner no.1’s

name was included in provisional voters list as delegate of petitioner no.2 society.

1 2007 (3) ALL MR 761

PAGE 5 OF 6
WP-5372-2026.odt

9. In result, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence

following order:

ORDER

a. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Tandale

PAGE 6 OF 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…