SAHEBRAO MOHANRAO AUTADEversusSTATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:22008


                                                (1)                        wp-5373-2026


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 5373 OF 2026

                                SAHEBRAO MOHANRAO AUTADE
                                             VERSUS
                      STATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY AND
                                             OTHERS
                                                  ...
                 Mr. A. N. Nagargoje h/f Mr. Laxman H. Kawale, Advocate for the
                 Petitioner.
                 Mr. S. K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                 Mr. V. D. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                 Mr. G. P. Darandale, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
                 Mr. P. B. Shirsath, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
                                                  ...
                                      CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                                 (VACATION COURT)
                                      DATE : 28th MAY, 2026.
                 ORDER:-

                 1.     The petitioner impugns order dated 18.05.2026 passed by

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

                 Divisional Joint Registrar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, whereby

                 petitioner’s name is directed to be deleted from provisional voters

                 list as well as final voters list at ensuing election of respondent

                 no.4/Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank Limited (for

                 short ‘ADCC Bank’).


                 2.     On    10.03.2026,   election   programme     for    election       of

                 respondent no.4/ADCC Bank came to be published.                          The

                 respondent no.3/member society convened meeting for nominating

                 its delegates at election of respondent no.4/ADCC Bank.                  On

                 08.04.2026 meeting was convened. Copy of Resolution appointing
                             (2)                    wp-5373-2026


petitioner as delegate was forwarded by Manager of respondent

no.3/society.    Accordingly, petitioner’s name being delegate of

respondent no.3/society was included in provisional voters list

published on 27.04.2026. The respondent no.5 raised an objection

to petitioner’s nomination as delegate and consequential inclusion

of his name in voters list on the ground that no Resolution had

been passed, but on the basis of false and manipulated Resolution,

petitioner’s name has been included.        The respondent no.2

accepted objection and directed deletion of petitioner’s name from

final voters list.


3.    Mr. Nagargoje, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner

submits that by notice dated 01.04.2026 meeting of Society was

convened for purpose of nominating delegate at election of ADCC

Bank. The notice specifies that in case meeting could not be held

for want of Coram, it can be postponed by half an hour and

Agenda of meeting would be taken for consideration even in

absence of Coram. Accordingly, in absence of Coram at first call,

second meeting was convened after half an hour and Resolution

was passed nominating petitioner as delegate of respondent

no.3/society. The Manager of Society had forwarded Resolution

within stipulated period in terms of election programme notified

by respondent no.2.      The petitioner’s name was included as
                            (3)                       wp-5373-2026


delegate in provisional voters list. The respondent no.2 had no

reason to entertain objection at the behest of respondent no.5.


4.    Per contra, Mr. Shirsath, learned Advocate appearing for

respondent no.5 and Mr. S. K. Kadam, learned Advocate

appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 support impugned order

contending that Administrator has been appointed on respondent

no.3/society. He has clarified that members has raised objection

that notice of meeting was not received to many members. It was

not issued seven days prior to scheduled date of meeting. Many

members were absent for want of knowledge. In result, meeting

was dropped.


5.    Having   considered   submissions    advanced    by     learned

Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that

petitioner’s name was included in provisional voters list being

delegate of respondent no.3/society. The respondent no.5 objects

petitioner’s nomination on ground that there was no valid

Resolution of member society appointing petitioner as delegate.

The Administrator of Society states that although meeting was

convened, it was dropped for want of Coram.        Per contra it is

contention of petitioner that vide notice dated 01.04.2026 meeting

was convened. On 08.04.2026, meeting was held and Resolution

was passed nominating petitioner as delegate.
                            (4)                      wp-5373-2026


6.    Pertinently, meeting was convened under signature of

Manager of Society. Accordingly, Resolution passed in meetings

has been placed on record, which depicts that Subject No.1 on

Agenda was discussed in meeting and, ultimately, Resolution was

passed.   Although Administrator is stating that meeting was

dropped for want of Coram, Mr. Nagargoje has brought to notice

of this Court bye-law no.30, which stipulates that in case of

absence of Coram, meeting can be held after thirty minutes and

Resolution can be passed without requisite Coram. He rightly

pointed out that as per bye-law no.49, five days advance notice of

meeting needs to be served by Manager and same has been done

in present case.


7.    Apparently, there is dispute as to validity of Resolution

nominating petitioner as delegate of respondent no.3/society. In

this backdrop, it is apposite to refer Rule 11(1) of Maharashtra

Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 2014, which

states as under:

     “11. Claims and objections to the provisional list of
     voters and the final list of voters for the societies
     having society or societies and individuals as
     members:
     (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,
                             (5)                      wp-5373-2026


     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.”

8.    Plain reading of aforesaid Rule would depicts that scope of

enquiry to be caused by District Co-operative Election Officer is

limited. He can deal with objection as to omission or error in

respect of name or address or other particulars in list.

Apparently, he cannot go into issue regarding legality of meeting

and constitution of Coram of member society. As such, Resolution

of Managing Committee, which is acted upon by including

petitioner’s name in provisional voters list cannot be ignored

unless and until it is set aside by Court of competent jurisdiction.

The Division Bench of this Court in case of Kamlabai Vitthal

Rohankar Vs. Additional Collector & Ors.1 observed in paragraph

no.14 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 Cooperative 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. Therefore,
      there is no doubt in our mind that Additional Collector
      rightly rejected objections of the respondent No. 4 and
      this order ought not to have been interfered with in the
      writ petition.”
                                 (6)                        wp-5373-2026


9.      In    light   of   aforesaid   observations   and    particularly

considering effect of non-inclusion of petitioner’s name in voters

list i.e. adverse effect on substantive right of member/society,

respondent no.2 could not have entertained objection merely on

basis of stand taken by Administrator.           It is not case where

Resolution is passed nominating some other member as delegate

of respondent no.3.          If respondent no.5 had any objection

regarding Resolution of respondent no.3/society nominating

petitioner as delegate, his remedy was under Section 91 of

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.


10.     In that view of matter, keeping in mind democratic

principles and right of respondent no.3/society to participate in

election of respondent no.4/ADCC Bank, Writ Petition deserves to

be entertained by setting aside impugned order. Hence, following

order is passed:

                                 ORDER

a.      Writ Petition is allowed in terms of of prayer Clause (B).



                                         (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                  JUDGE




Devendra/May-2026