Bombay High Court

SHRIRAM GOVINDRAO PAWARversusTHE DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE ELECTION OFFICER AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

A resolution passed by the majority of the Managing Committee is not invalid merely because the Chairman’s and Secretary’s signatures are missing, and the proper remedy is a proceeding under Section 91, not judicial interference under Article 226.

Summary

The petitioner, Shriram Govindrao Pawar, challenged an order dated 25 May 2026 of the District Co-operative Election Officer that rejected his objection to the nomination of respondent No.4 as a delegate of respondent No.3 Society. He argued that the resolution nominating the delegate was invalid because it lacked the signatures of the Chairman and Secretary of the Managing Committee. The Court examined the resolution, noting that it was passed by nine members of the Managing Committee despite the missing signatures, and held that a majority‑passed resolution is not automatically invalid pending internal disputes. The Court observed that the appropriate remedy for contesting the resolution’s validity is a proceeding under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, not interference under Article 226. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with all points left open for any post‑election dispute.

Issues considered

Whether the absence of Chairman and Secretary signatures renders the resolution nominating a delegate invalid.
Whether the High Court can intervene under Article 226 to set aside the District Co‑operative Election Officer’s order.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act — s. 91

Subjects

co-operative societies
delegate nomination
resolution validity
Section 91
Article 226
writ petition
District Co-operative Election Officer

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:24020
                                         (1)                      942-wp-5729-2026.odt



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 5729 OF 2026

                               SHRIRAM GOVINDRAO PAWAR
                                           VERSUS
                 THE DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE ELECTION OFFICER AND
                                           OTHERS
                                               ...
               Shinde Shubham Kanhu, Advocate for the Petitioner.
               Mr. S. K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
               Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
               Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. A. V. Hon a/w Mr.
               Shubham S. Kote and Mr. H. A. Karad, Advocate for Respondent
               No.3.
               Mr. A. L. Kanade, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
                                               ...
                                       CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                       DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026.
               P.C.:-

               1.     The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated

               25.05.2026     passed    by     District   Co-operative        Election

               Officer/Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur

               whereby petitioner’s objection to nomination of respondent no.4 as

               delegate of respondent no.3 Society came to be rejected.


               2.     The petitioner raised objection that Resolution nominating

               respondent no.4 as delegate of respondent no.3 is not validly

               passed, as there are no signatures of Chairman and Secretary.


               3.     Perusal of Resolution shows that nine members of Managing

               Committee passed Resolution nominating respondent no.4 as

               delegate at election of respondent no.2 Federal Society.           Only

               because signature of Chairman and Secretary is absent because of
                             (2)                     942-wp-5729-2026.odt



dispute between members of Managing Committee, Resolution

passed by majority cannot be termed as invalid at this stage. The

District Co-operative Election Officer after considering relevant

record observed that Resolution is legal and valid. If petitioner

seeks to challenge validity of Resolution, he has efficacious remedy

to file proceeding under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act.       At this stage, on prima facie consideration of

material on record, no good ground is found to cause interference

under Article 226 of Constitution of India.


4.      In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed.   All points kept

open for post election dispute.



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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…