Bombay High Court

BALKRUSHNA TYRES EMPLOYEES SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE SATISH S TEKALEversusSTATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

Until a final winding‑up order is passed, a society under an interim liquidation order retains its right to vote and nominate representatives, making the election officer’s order deleting its name, without hearing, void.

Summary

The petitioners, Balkrushna Tyres Employees Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, a member of Aurangabad District Central Co‑operative Bank, were initially included in the provisional voters list for the bank's board election. The District Cooperative Election Officer later deleted their name, citing an interim liquidation order under Section 103 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioners argued that no final winding‑up order had been passed, they were denied a hearing, and the objection raised by a third party lacked standing. The court examined the effect of an interim liquidation order, Rule 11 of the 2014 Election Rules, and precedents such as Vineshkumar Mavjibhai Parmar v. Dethali Gopalak. It held that until a final winding‑up order is issued, the society retains its voting rights and the deletion order, made without hearing, violates natural justice. Consequently, the order was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Does an interim order appointing a liquidator under Section 103 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, disqualify a society from participating in elections of a cooperative bank before a final winding‑up order is passed?
Was the District Cooperative Election Officer required to afford a hearing to the society before deleting its name from the provisional voters list under principles of natural justice and Rule 11 of the Election Rules, 2014?
Can an objection raised by a third party without locus standi be acted upon to delete a member society’s name from the voters list?
Is the deletion order ultra vires the statutory scheme governing cooperative societies in liquidation?

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 102, 103
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 — s. Rule 11

Subjects

cooperative societies
liquidation
winding up
election
voters list
natural justice
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
interim order
final winding‑up order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:22027
926-WP-5448-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 5448 OF 2026

Balkrushna Tyres Employees Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd Through Its
Representative Satish S Tekale
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
926-WP-5448-2026.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
926-WP-5448-2026.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
926-WP-5448-2026.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
926-WP-5448-2026.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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…