Bombay High Court

ANKUSH RANGNATH KALEversusTHE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR SUGAR AHILYANAGAR AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The petition is dismissed; non‑compliance with the cooperative society’s bye‑laws disqualifies the petitioner from being validly nominated.

Summary

Ankush Rangnath Kale filed a writ petition challenging the order that upheld the rejection of his nomination in the election of a sugar cooperative (Karkhana). The Returning Officer had rejected his nomination on the ground that he failed to comply with the society’s bye‑law clause 26(1)(E)(4) and (5), constituting a breach of Rule 21(3) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Rules, 2014. The petitioner argued that no notice was given and an arbitrator should have been appointed before disqualification. The Court held that eligibility for election is governed by the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act and the society’s bye‑laws, which require members to supply sugarcane; failure to do so makes a nominee ineligible. Since the petitioner could not demonstrate compliance, the Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the rejection of his nomination intact.

Issues considered

Whether non‑compliance with bye‑law clause 26(1)(E)(4) and (5) and breach of Rule 21(3) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Rules, 2014 disqualifies a member from being validly nominated in a cooperative society election.
Whether the returning officer was required to issue a notice and appoint an arbitrator before rejecting the nomination.
Whether the High Court can set aside the order upholding the rejection of the nomination.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 2014 — s. Rule 21(3)

Subjects

cooperative society
election
nomination
disqualification
bye-laws
sugarcane supply
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:24032
                                         (1)                     943-wp-6028-2026.odt



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 6028 OF 2026
                                  ANKUSH RANGNATH KALE
                                            VERSUS
                 THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR SUGAR AHILYANAGAR
                                          AND OTHERS
                                               ...
               Mr. Ravindra V Gore and Mr. Yogesh S Thorat, Advocate for the
               Petitioner.
               Mr. K. S. Patil, AGP for Respondents-State.
               Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
               Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate
               for Respondent No.3.
               Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
                                               ...
                                         CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                         DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026.
               P.C.:-

               1.     The petitioner impugns order dated 12.06.2026 passed by

               respondent no.1 Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Ahilyanagar

               Region in Appeal No.4/2026, thereby upholding order dated

               03.06.2026 passed by respondent no.2 Returning Officer rejecting

               petitioner’s nomination at the election of respondent no.3

               Karkhana.


               2.     The petitioner submitted his nomination.    The Returning

               Officer on scrutiny of nomination and on the basis of information

               supplied by Karkhana observed that petitioner has not complied

               with provision of bye-laws, particularly Clause No.26(1)(E)(4) and

               (5). As such, breached Rule 21(3) of MCS Rules, 2014.


               3.     Mr. Gore, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits

               that, there is nothing to demonstrate that petitioner has breached
                            (2)                       943-wp-6028-2026.odt



bye-laws of Society. According to him, in case of breach, Karkhana

ought to have given notice to petitioner and Arbitrator ought to

have been appointed to recover losses, if any, caused to Karkhana

due to default of petitioner.        However, petitioner cannot be

disqualified to contest election.


4.      The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted, as eligibility of

petitioner or any member to contest election is governed by

provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Rules

framed thereunder, and the bye-laws of concerned Co-operative

Society. In the present case, bye-laws prescribe requirement for

supply of sugarcane by members and non-compliance thereof or

breach of agreement in that regard constitutes disqualification for

being validly nominated in election.       In present case, petitioner

could not demonstrate before this Court that he complied terms of

agreement or requirement of supplying sugarcane. Hence, there is

no merit in contentions of petitioner.


5.      In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed.


6.      Needless to state here that, all contentions are kept open to

be raised in appropriate proceeding post election



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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…