Bombay High Court

GAJANAN LAXMANRAO GOPEWADversusSEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA NANDED AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The inclusion of the defaulting Society in the voters list was contrary to the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 and therefore the petition is allowed.

Summary

Gajanan, a member of Seva Sahakari Sanstha (Society 1), filed a writ petition challenging the inclusion of his Society’s delegate in the voters list for the Nanded District Central Co‑operative Bank election. The petitioner argued that the Society was a defaulter on the eligibility cut‑off date of 3 April 2026, as dues of Rs 1,48,362 were cleared only on 20 April 2026, rendering it disqualified under Section 27(10) and Section 73CA of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960. The respondents contended that the dues, including interest, were cleared before the Society’s resolution nominating the delegate, and therefore the Society was not in default. The Court examined the statutory provisions, the cut‑off date fixed by the election authority’s notification, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Himat v. Rajendra (Civil Appeal No.905/2021), concluding that the Society was indeed in default on the cut‑off date and its inclusion violated the Act and the bank’s bye‑laws. Consequently, the petition was allowed, directing the removal of the Society’s name from the voters list.

Issues considered

Whether the Society was a defaulter on the eligibility cut‑off date prescribed by the election notification.
Whether the inclusion of a defaulting Society’s delegate in the voters list contravenes Section 27 and Section 73CA of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960.
Whether the objection raised by the petitioner must be upheld despite the later clearance of dues.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 27(10), 73CA(1)(f)(1)(2), 73CA(1)(f)(3)

Subjects

co‑operative societies
voter eligibility
default
disqualification
Section 27
Section 73CA
co‑operative bank elections
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:24275
                                           (1)                       wp-5641-2026 .odt



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                             WRIT PETITION NO.5641 OF 2026
                           GAJANAN S/O LAXMANRAO GOPETWAD
                                             VERSUS
                            SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA AND ORS.
                                                ...
               Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioner.
               Mr. G. R. Ingole, Advocate for Respodnent No.1.
               Mr. S. K. Kadam, Advocates for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
                                                …
                                        CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

               RESERVED ON   : 16th JUNE, 2026.
               PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd JUNE, 2026.

               ORDER:-

               1.     The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated

               25.05.2026 passed by respondent no.2 District Co-operative

               Election Officer and Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative

               Societies, Latur, thereby rejecting petitioner’s objection for

               inclusion of name of delegate of respondent Society in voters list for

               election of Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank (for short

               ‘NDCC Bank’) for term 2026 to 2031.


               2.     The elections of NDCC Bank are due. The respondent no.2-

               State Co-operative Election Authority invited nominations of

               delegates from member Society. The respondent no.1 is member

               Society of NDCC Bank, who passed Resolution dated 27.03.2026

               nominating its delegate. Accordingly, name of respondent Society

               was included in provisional voters list.
                             (2)                       wp-5641-2026 .odt



3.    The petitioner, who is member of respondent no.1 Society

raised objection to inclusion of name of respondent no.1 in voters

list on ground that as on cut off date for eligibility fixed under

Notification of respondent no.2, Society was defaulter and not

eligible to include in voters list. It is submitted that on 20.04.2026,

Society cleared its dues, which itself shows that it was defaulter on

03.04.2026 i.e. date fixed for eligibility as per Notification dated

12.03.2026.     However, respondent no.2 rejected petitioner’s

objection.


4.    Mr. Salunke, learned Advocates appearing for petitioner

submits that there were dues of Rs.1,48,362/- against Society,

which has been cleared on 20.04.2026 i.e. after cut off date.

Eventually, in terms of Section 73CA(1)(f)(1)(2) read with Section

73CA(1)(f)(3) read with Section 27 of Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘MCS Act, 1960’), Society suffered

disqualification.


5.    Per contra, Mr. Ingole, learned Advocate appearing for

respondent no.1 submits that there were running dues of interest,

which were cleared on 20.04.2026 and, therefore, as on date of

Resolution of Society nominating its delegates, Society was not in

default.


6.    Having    considered    submissions    advanced      by     learned

Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that
                            (3)                      wp-5641-2026 .odt



Section 27(10) of MCS Act, 1960, a member who has taken loan

from Society and has committed default in repayment thereof loses

his right to vote in affairs of Society. Section 73CA prescribes for

disqualification of Committee and its members. Clause (f) of Sub-

clause (1) deals with disqualification pertaining to DCC Bank or

State Co-operative Bank. Sub-clause (i) of Sub-clause (f) prescribes

that person who represents Society other than primary agricultural

credit co-operative society shall be disqualified, if Society to whom

he represents had committed default towards payment of dues.

Similarly, bye-laws of DCC Bank provides for disqualification of

default.


7.    In light of aforesaid legal position, if record tendered before

this Court is perused, it is undisputed that respondent Society

deposited amount of Rs.1,48,362/- at Himayatnagar Branch of

NDCC Bank on 20.04.2026. The NDCC Bank also clarified that on

15.04.2026 interest amount of Rs.1,48,362/- was due towards

Society and same has been cleared on 20.04.2026.                As per

Notification dated 12.03.2026 issued by respondent no.2 eligibility

for inclusion in voters list is to be fixed as on 03.04.2026.

Apparently, respondent no.1 Society was in default as on date of

15.04.2026, which is cleared after date of eligibility fixed under

Notification. The impugned order suggests that objection to

inclusion of name of respondent no.1 has been rejected only on
                              (4)                      wp-5641-2026 .odt



ground that dues are cleared after cut off date.        At this stage,

reference can be given to observations of Supreme Court in case of

Himat Vs. Rajendra and Others (Civil Appeal No.905/2021

decided on 15.03.2021), which reads as under:

       “3. The view so taken by the High Court is completely
       erroneous and is based on factual error in not adverting to
       the notification dated 27.12.2019 issued by the District
       Cooperative Election Officer. According to that
       notification, the primary voters list was to be prepared on
       the basis of cut-off date as 07.05.2020. Further, as per
       Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
       1960, the defaulter members on the cut-off date are not
       eligible to vote and, therefore, cannot participate in the
       election process.

       4. In the present case, admittedly, respondent No.6-
       Society, whom the respondent No.1 was representing as its
       nominee had paid the outstanding dues only on
       27.11.2020, much beyond the cut-off date of 07.05.2020.
       On this count alone, the writ petition filed by respondent
       No.1 should have been rejected by the High Court.”

8.      In light of aforesaid legal position, it is apparent that

respondent no.1 Society has been included in voters list although it

was disqualified. This Court finds that such inclusion is contrary

to provision of Act, Rule and bye-laws. The respondent no.2 failed

to consider objection raised by petitioner in judicious manner or in

accordance with mandate of MCS Act, 1960 as well as bye-laws of

Society.


9.      In result, Writ Petition succeeds and allowed in terms of

prayer Clauses (B) and (C).

                                       (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                JUDGE
Devendra/June-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…