Bombay High Court

SARANGDHAR WAMAN DIKEversusSTATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

Section 27(10) of the MCS Act, 1960 disqualifies only the voting rights of individual members and does not bar a delegate who has cleared dues before nomination; therefore the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Sarangdhar Wawman Dike, challenged an order of the District Co‑operative Election Officer that rejected his objection to the nomination of respondent 5 as the delegate of respondent 3 (a co‑operative society) for the election of the Aurangabad District Central Co‑operative Bank. The dispute centered on whether respondent 5, who was a defaulter of the society as of the cut‑off date of 21 March 2026, could be nominated as delegate. The petitioner relied on Section 27(10) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 and a Supreme Court decision (Himat v. Rajendra) to argue that the defaulter status disqualified the delegate. The respondent argued that the defaulter had cleared dues on 24 March 2026 and that Section 27(10) pertains only to the voting rights of individual members, not to the qualification of a delegate. The Court held that the statutory provision disqualifies only members’ voting rights and does not affect delegate eligibility, especially since the defaulter had cleared dues before the resolution nominating him. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as having no merit.

Issues considered

Whether Section 27(10) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 disqualifies a delegate who is a defaulter as of the election cut‑off date.
Whether the cut‑off date for qualification of members/societies applies to the qualification of a delegate nominated by the society.
Whether the order of the District Co‑operative Election Officer can be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 27(10), 73(CA)(1)(i)(f)(ii)

Subjects

co-operative societies
delegate nomination
defaulter
voting rights
Section 27
election
Article 227
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:22004


                                              (1)                      wp-5374-2026




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                              WRIT PETITION NO.5374 OF 2026

                                 SARANGDHAR WAWMAN DIKE
                                             VERSUS
                        STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY
                             MAHARASHTRA STATE PUNE AND ORS
                                              …
                 Mr. A. N. Nagargoje h/f Mr. L. 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 : 26th MAY, 2026.
                 ORDER:-

                 1.     The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated

                 18.05.2026 passed by respondent no.2/District Co-operative

                 Election Officer, thereby rejecting petitioner’s objection to

                 nomination of respondent no.5 as delegate of respondent

                 no.3/society at the election of respondent no.4/Aurangabad

                 District Central Co-operative Bank (for short ‘ADCC Bank’).


                 2.     The sum and substance of petitioner’s contention is that

                 respondent   no.3   is   Co-operative   Society   registered    under

                 provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for

                 short ‘MCS Act, 1960’). The petitioner as well as respondent no.5

                 are member of respondent no.3-Society. On 27.04.2026, election
                            (2)                      wp-5374-2026


programme for election of respondent no.4/ADCC Bank for period

of 2026-2031 came to be published by respondent no.2.

Accordingly, on 27.04.2026 provisional voters list came to be

published.       As per election programme dated 10.03.2026

members/Societies were to submit names of delegates alongwith

Resolution. The qualifying date for inclusion of name of member

society was given as 21.03.2026.        According to petitioner,

respondent no.3/Society passed Resolution nominating respondent

no.5 as its delegate at election of ADCC Bank.            However,

respondent no.5 was defaulter of respondent no.3/Society as on

21.03.2026. As such, he was not qualified to represent Society.

Hence, his name ought to have been deleted/removed from voters

list, which was published by District Co-operative Election Officer

on 27.04.2026.


3.   Mr. Nagargoje, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner

submits that in view of Section 27(10) of MCS Act, 1960 r/w

Section 73(CA)(1)(i)(f)(ii) of MCS Act, 1960, respondent no.5

cannot represent respondent no.3 being defaulter as on cut off

date i.e. 21.03.2026 notified by District Co-operative Election

Officer. He relies upon judgment of Supreme Court in case of

Himat Vs. Rajendra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.905/2021

decided on 15.03.2021)
                                  (3)                       wp-5374-2026


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

respondent no.5 submits that respondent no.5 has cleared dues of

Society on 24.03.2026.          Accordingly, on 27.03.2026 respondent

no.3/society passed Resolution recommending respondent no.5 as

its delegate. Mr. Shirsath would further point out that individual

qualification and disqualification of respondent no.5 is not

material, as member/society is voter at election of Federal

Society/DCC Bank.        Therefore, assuming that respondent no.5

was defaulter on cut off date, Section 27(10) of MCS Act, 1960 has

no   application,   as     it     speaks     about   disqualification      of

members/society and not delegate or its representative.


5.    Perusal of impugned order shows that respondent no.2 has

considered all relevant aspects.            It has been observed that

respondent no.5 had already cleared dues of respondent

no.3/society and as on date of Resolution nominating him as

delegate, he was not defaulter of parent society. The language of

sub-section (10) of Section 27 of MCS Act, 1960 clearly stipulates

about right of individual member, who has obtained loan from

society and being defaulter looses his right to vote in affairs of

society. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Shirsath, cut off date of

21.03.2026 referred in Notification issued by respondent no.2 for

election   of   ADCC      Bank          speaks   about   qualification     of
                            (4)                      wp-5374-2026


members/society as on 21.03.2026.      It has nothing to do with

qualification of delegate/member nominated by society. Further,

respondent no.5 has already cleared dues of parent society and

continued to be valid member of respondent no.3 on date of

Resolution nominating him as delegate.


6.      Hence, no case is made out to cause interference under

Article 227 of Constitution of India. In result, Writ Petition sans

merit. Hence, stands dismissed.



                                    (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                             JUDGE




Devendra/May-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…