Bombay High Court
DEVGIRI PRIMARY GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE ATUL D PATILversusSTATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
An interim liquidation order does not deprive a society of its right to participate in cooperative bank elections, and deletion of its name without a hearing is unlawful.
Summary
The petitioners, Devgiri Primary Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Ltd, a member of Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, challenged an order dated 18-05-2026 that deleted their name from the provisional voters list for the bank's board election. The deletion was based on a claim that the society was under liquidation following an interim order appointing a liquidator under Section 103 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioners argued that no final winding‑up order had been passed, that they were denied a hearing, and that the objection raised by a third party lacked locus standi under Rule 11 of the 2014 Election Rules. The court held that an interim liquidation order does not extinguish the society’s right to participate in elections until a final order is made, and that the election officer’s action violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a society subject only to an interim liquidation order under Section 103 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is barred from participating in a cooperative bank's election.
- Whether the election officer can delete a member society's name from the voters list without affording a hearing, in violation of natural justice.
- Whether an objection raised by a third party without locus standi under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 is valid.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- cooperative societies
- liquidation
- interim order
- winding up
- natural justice
- election
- voters list
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- cooperative bank elections
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:22023
923-WP-5445-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5445 OF 2026
Devgiri Primary Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Ltd Through
Its Representative Atul D Patil
VERSUS
State Co Operative Election Authority Through Its Commissioner And
Others
...
Mr. P. B. Shirsath, 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. V. H. Pathade, Advocate for Respondent No.4
***
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J
(VACATION COURT)
DATE : MAY 28, 2026
PC :
1. The Petitioners impugn order dated 18-05-2026 passed by
Respondent No. 2 - District Cooperative Election Officer, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar, thereby deleting name of Petitioner Society from voters list of
Respondent No. 4 – Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for short
‘ADCC Bank’).
2. Undisputedly, Petitioner/Society is a member of Respondent No. 4
Bank. The election of Board of Directors of Respondent No. 4 Bank was due in
month of March, 2026. The Respondent No. 2 issued a notification dated
11.03.2026 inviting member society to submit resolution of its representative for
preparation of provisional voters list. In pursuance to resolution passed by Society,
PAGE 1 OF 5
923-WP-5445-2026.odt
representatives were nominated to participate in election of Respondent No. 4 Bank.
Eventually, name of delegates/representatives of Petitioners Society was included in
provisional voters list. However, on objection raised by Shri. R. L. Tupe and report
submitted by Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 2 Election Officer deleted name
of Petitioner Society from voter's list on ground that Society is under liquidation.
3. Mr. Shirsath, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioners, submits that
impugned order is passed without granting opportunity of hearing to Petitioners.
Shri. R. L. Tupe had raised objection dated 10.04.2026 before notification of
election issued by Respondent No. 2. Shri. R. L. Tupe has no locus to invoke
jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 under Rule 11 of Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (for short ‘Election Rules of 2014’).
Even otherwise, merely on ground that interim order is passed by Registrar
appointing liquidators and before passing final order for winding up of Society,
existence of Society and right to participate in election of federal Society cannot be
taken away. He would submit that in present case, liquidator has not taken charge of
affairs of society. No steps are taken in pursuance to passing final order of winding
up. In support of his contention, Mr. Shirsath relies upon observations of Supreme
Court of India in case of Vineshkumar Mavjibhai Parmar and Others vs. Dethali
Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd and Others , 2017 (1) SCC 273 and
observations of Single Judge of this Court in case of Balaji Phale Bhaji Pala Kharedi
Vikri and Prakriya Sahakari Sanstha Ltd vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
(Writ Petition No. 1266/2021, decided on 30.01.2021).
PAGE 2 OF 5
923-WP-5445-2026.odt
4. Per contra, Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, justifies impugned order contending that report was called from
Respondent No. 1 regarding dormant societies. The action of interim measures for
winding up of Society are already taken. The orders appointing liquidator in terms
of Section 103 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’)
have been passed long back and same have attained finality. The officers of society
are not in charge of office. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 has rightly passed order
deleting name of Petitioner Society from list of voters for ensuing election of ADCC
bank.
5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates
appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that Petitioner Society is a
member Society of Respondent No. 4 - ADCC Bank. The name of Petitioner
Society was included in provisional voters list for ensuing elections of Respondent
No.4 Bank. On 10.03.2026, notification inviting resolutions regarding
representatives of member society was published by Respondent No. 2. Accordingly,
Petitioner Society had passed a resolution nominating its delegate. As per
notification, objections to provisional voters list were to be raised during period from
27.04.2026 to 06.05.2026. Admittedly, during this period, no objection was raised
in terms of Rule 11 of Election Rules of 2014. However, Respondent No. 2, relying
upon communication of Shri. R. L. Tupe, called report from Respondent No. 4
regarding status of Petitioner Society. Accordingly, action of deletion of name of
Petitioner Society has been taken.
PAGE 3 OF 5
923-WP-5445-2026.odt
6. Undisputedly, action is taken on ground that interim order appointing
liquidator on Petitioner Society has been passed in terms of Section 103 of the Act.
There is nothing to show that in terms of interim order, liquidator has taken charge
of society. The sub-section 3 of Section 103 of the stipulates shows that when final
order is passed confirming interim order, officers of society shall vacate their offices
and while winding-up order remains in force, general body of Society shall not
exercise any power. In present case, stage contemplated under sub-section 3 of
Section 103 of the Act is not yet reached. Therefore, there is no reason to presume
that office of Society fallen vacant. Till this date, winding-up order is not passed and
powers of general body of society are not suspended.
7. In case of Vineshkumar Mavjibhai Parmar and Others (supra),
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in paragraph 25 and 31, thus:
25. The Gujarat legislature expressly provided under the
SOCIETIES ACT for the curtailment of certain rights of the
officers of societies facing liquidation proceedings. It must be
remembered that at the same time it also declared that such
OFFICERS cease to be the officers of the Society only when a
final order of winding up is passed. In a given case if the Registrar
after an appropriate enquiry following the interim order of
winding decides not to finally wind up the society, the
OFFICERS of the society would once again be entitled to
exercise all the rights associated with it and perform all the
functions attached to the office. Therefore, merely because the
officers of CREDIT SOCIETY facing liquidation are disabled
from enforcing certain rights attached to the office or perform
certain obligations appended to the office, it does not necessarily
follow that they are disabled from performing every function
entrusted by law to such office.
31. Credit Societies against which there is an 'interim order'
of winding up are temporarily debarred from dispensing
PAGE 4 OF 5
923-WP-5445-2026.odt
agricultural credit, by virtue of the operation of law. The embargo
imposed by such interim order may or may not fructify into a
final order of winding up. On the face of such possibility of the
society resuming its activity of "dispensing agricultural credit" - to
debar its managing committee members from discharging their
statutory obligation under the MARKETS ACT would be
productive of public mischief. Such an interpretation of the
statute must be avoided.
8. In light of aforesaid observations, in present case, when final order is
not yet passed in terms of Section 102 of the Act on basis of interim order for
winding-up of Society, it cannot be held that Petitioner Society had no authority to
participate in the election of ADCC bank or recommend name of its representative.
9. The record indicates that impugned order is passed without there
being objection by any member or representative of member of society in terms of
Rule 11 of Election Rules of 2014. The Respondent No.2 acted upon
communication of Shri. R. L. Tupe who has no locus standi to raise objection
regarding inclusion of Petitioners name in provisional voters list. Further,
Respondent No.2 did not offer opportunity of hearing to Petitioner Society and
passed order disregard to principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, order
impugned is not sustainable in light of scheme under the Act.
10. In result, impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence,
Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 5 OF 5
Checking your session…