Bombay High Court
ANIL DAULATRAO BORSEversusTHE STATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner lacked locus standi and failed to prove the society’s liquidation.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Daulatrao Borse, challenged an order dated 18-05-2026 that rejected his objection to the inclusion of Respondent No. 4 in the provisional voters list for the election of the Board of Directors of Aurangabad District Central Co‑operative Bank. The objection was filed under the Election Rules of 2014, which allow only members of the bank or representatives of member societies to raise such objections. The District Election Officer dismissed the objection on the grounds that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the society he claimed to represent had not been liquidated. The court examined the petitioner's claim of representing the National Vidyut Yantriki Labour Contractor Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. and found no documentary evidence to substantiate his membership or the society’s status as a member of the bank. Consequently, the court held that the petition was without merit and dismissed it. The decision underscores the strict requirement of locus standi and evidentiary support in election‑related objections.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner had locus standi to object to the provisional voters list under Rule 11 of the Election Rules, 2014
- Whether the society alleged to be in liquidation had indeed been liquidated, justifying the objection
Subjects
- locus standi
- provisional voters list
- co‑operative bank election
- Election Rules 2014
- objection
- liquidation
- writ petition
- high court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:22019
924-WP-5446-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5446 OF 2026
Anil Daulatrao Borse
VERSUS
The State Co Operative Election Authority And Others
...
Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi h/f Mr. A. K. Shingare, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Mr. G. P. Darandale, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Mr. P. B. Shirsath, Advocate for Respondent No. 4
***
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J
(VACATION COURT)
DATE : MAY 28, 2026
PC :
1. The Petitioner impugns order dated 18-05-2026 passed by
Respondent No. 2, rejecting Petitioner's objection for inclusion of name of
Respondent No. 4 in voters list of Respondent No. 3 – Aurangabad District Central
Co-operative Bank (for short ‘ADCC Bank’).
2. The election of Board of Directors of Respondent No. 3, ADCC bank,
were due in month of March, 2026. On 11.03.2026, Respondent No. 2 District
Election Officer, issued a notification inviting member societies to submit resolution
of its representative for preparation of provisional voters list. The Respondent No. 5
society passed resolution nominating name of its representative. On 27.04.2026,
provisional voters list was published. The name of Respondent No. 4 was included
as representative of Respondent No. 5 Society. The Petitioner had raised objection
before Respondent No. 2 regarding inclusion of name of Respondent No. 4 in
PAGE 1 OF 2
924-WP-5446-2026.odt
voters list. Respondent No. 2 rejected vide impugned order. Hence, this Petition.
3. Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties. Perusal of
impugned order shows that Petitioner's objection is rejected firstly on ground that he
has no locus standi to raise objection to provisional voters list. Secondly, Respondent
No. 5 is not shown to have gone under liquidation as claimed by Petitioner.
Apparently, reasons recorded by Respondent No. 2 are in tune with factual backdrop
of matter and legal position.
4. The Petitioner claims to be representative of National Vidyut Yantriki
Labour Contractor Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. However, nothing is brought on
record to show that Petitioner is either member or representative of said society or
said society is member of Respondent No. 3 ADCC Bank. Even in present Petition,
Petitioner has not clarified his locus to file objection in terms of Rule 11 of Election
Rules of 2014, which contemplates that objection can be entertained at behest of
member of ADCC Bank or representative of member society of Bank. In absence of
necessary particulars depicting locus of Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 is justified in
refusing to entertain Petitioner's objection. Even otherwise, Petitioner had failed to
bring on record documentary evidence in support of his contention that Respondent
No. 5 society has gone under liquidation or lost right to participate in election of
ADCC Bank.
5. In result, Writ Petition sans merit. Hence, Writ Petition stands
dismissed
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 2 OF 2
Checking your session…