Bombay High Court
PRASHANT ANNASAHEB JADHAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The Court held that replacement of a representative is permissible only when disqualification is declared by a competent authority after nomination, which was not the case here, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order of the District Co‑operative Election Officer refusing to include their newly nominated representative in the provisional voters list for the Parbhani District Central Co‑operative Bank election. The earlier delegate had been deleted from the list because he was a defaulter, and the society subsequently passed a resolution to nominate a new representative. The petitioners relied on sub‑rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra State Co‑operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, arguing that it permits a change of representative when the earlier one is found disqualified. The Court held that the provision applies only when disqualification is adjudicated by a competent authority after the nomination, not when the delegate is already a defaulter at the time of nomination. Consequently, the society could not replace the disqualified delegate, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether sub‑rule (4) of Rule 10 of the MCS Rules, 2014 allows a society to replace a representative who is already disqualified as a defaulter before nomination.
- Whether the disqualification effected by the Election Officer constitutes an adjudication by a competent authority under the Act.
- Whether the society retains the right to participate in the election after its delegate is deleted from the voters list.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra State Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 27
- Maharashtra State Co‑operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 — s. Rule 10(4)
Subjects
- Co‑operative societies
- Election law
- Voters list
- Disqualification
- Representative nomination
- Maharashtra
- Rule interpretation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:24635
(1) wp-5960-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5960 OF 2026
PRASHANT ANNASAHEB JADHAV AND ANR.
VERSUS
THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY, M.S.
PUNE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS.
...
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi,
Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.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
11.06.2026 passed by respondent no.2 District Co-operative
Election Officer/Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, whereby respondent no.2 refused to
include name of petitioner no.1 in voters list for election of
respondent no.3 Parbhani District Central Co-operative Bank (for
short ‘PDCC Bank’).
2. The respondent no.2 issued Notification dated 20.03.2026
calling upon member Societies to submit Resolution nominating
their delegates for inclusion in voters list for election for term of
2026-2031. The petitioner no.2 Society passed Resolution and
nominated Mr. Pankaj Appasaheb Jadhav as delegate of Society.
Accordingly, his name was included in voters list. However, on
(2) wp-5960-2026.odt
objection that delegate is office bearer of defaulter society, his
name was deleted vide order dated 28.05.2026 sustaining objection
regarding his disqualification. In aforesaid backdrop, on
08.06.2026, petitioner no.2 Society passed another Resolution
nominating petitioner no.1 as representative of Society. The said
Resolution was submitted to Assistant Registrar on 08.06.2026.
However, respondent no.2 refused to include name of newly
nominated representative. Hence, this petition.
3. Mr. Hon, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners
submits that Rule 10(4) of Maharashtra State Co-operative
Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (for short ‘MCS
Rules, 2014’) permits society to change name of its representative
in event representative is found to be disqualified. Such change is
permitted up to five days before last date of making nomination. As
such, there was no impediment in accepting nomination of
petitioner no.1 in terms of Resolution of Society, since earlier
delegate was found disqualified. He would submit that impugned
order has taken away legal right of petitioner no.2 Society to
participate in election.
4. Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent no.3 PDCC Bank supports impugned order. According
to him, contingencies stipulated in sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of MCS
Rules, 2014 are not discernible in facts of present case. The
(3) wp-5960-2026.odt
respondent no.2 has rightly considered object and purport of
aforesaid Rule and held that Resolution passed by petitioner no.2
Society cannot be acted upon.
5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties, apparently there is no
dispute on factual aspects of matter. The controversy is only
limited as to interpretation of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of MCS Rules,
2014. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 reads thus:
“10. Particulars to be included in the provisional list of
voters for the societies having society or society and
individuals as members.
(4) A society which has communicated the name of its
representative shall, by like resolution, be permitted to
change the name of its representative only in case of
death of the representative or resignation by the
representative or if such representative is found to be
disqualified on adjudication by competent authority
under any of the provisions of the Act, Rules, bye-laws or
where there is newly elected committee of the member
society not later than five days before the last date for
making nominations.”
6. Careful reading of aforesaid provision depicts that certain
contingencies are taken into account whereby change in name of
representative of Society can be permitted. The contingencies are
as under:
(i) death of representative;
(ii) resignation by representative;
(iii) if representative is found to be disqualified on
adjudication by Competent Authority under any of
provision of Act, Rules or Bye-laws and
(4) wp-5960-2026.odt
(iv) where there is newly elected Committee of member
Society.
7. In present case, Clause (iii) is pressed into service. According
to petitioner Society, since representative/delegate who was
nominated by first Resolution of Society is held to be disqualified
resulting into deletion of name of Society from provisional voters
list, Society is entitled to nominate qualified representative and
participate in election. This Court finds that condition stipulated
in Clause No.(iii) would arise only when representative is found to
be disqualified on adjudication by Competent Authority under any
of provision of Act. Apparently, such disqualification must surface
post nomination of delegate. The Competent Authority under Act
or Rules must declare nominated delegate disqualified after his
nomination. The provision clearly intends to grant benefit to
Society whose representative is declared disqualified by Competent
Authority after his nomination as delegate of Society.
8. In present case, petitioner’s delegate was already disqualified
being defaulter at the time of passing Resolution by Society
nominating him as their delegate. It is not case where Competent
Authority under Act has declared him disqualified post his
nomination as delegate. The words “found to be disqualified on
adjudication by Competent Authority” cannot be construed to mean
deletion of name of disqualified representative/delegate from
(5) wp-5960-2026.odt
provisional voters list. The Election Officer, who deals with
objection on voters list is not Authority who is competent to declare
disqualification of member of Society. Therefore, there is no
question of any adjudication on disqualification by him. The
provision contemplates declaration of disqualification on
adjudication by Competent Authority. Therefore, it is difficult to
hold that only because first representative of petitioner Society was
found to be ineligible by Election Officer, which resulted into
deletion of his name from voters list can be construed as person
disqualified on adjudication by Competent Authority under
provisions of Act and Rules.
9. The disqualification for inclusion in voters list occurs
immediately on default in repayment of loan or dues and it does
not require declaration by Competent Authority under Act and
Rules. Section 27 of MCS Act, 1960 operates in different arena. It
does not speaks about incurring disqualification of member of
Society. It only deals with voting right of member. If member
becomes defaulter of Society, which is essentially pre-election
situation, voting right is taken away and, therefore, such
disqualification does not require adjudication by competent
authority for declaring delegate disqualified. Therefore, this Court
finds that where name of delegate has been deleted being defaulter
of Society, Society would loos its right to participate in election and
(6) wp-5960-2026.odt
cannot take resort to sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of MCS Rules, 2014 to
seek inclusion of another delegate who is nominated by subsequent
Resolution. In that view of matter, this Court finds no reason to
entertain Writ Petition.
10. In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/June-2026
Checking your session…