Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

GOVINDRAO SHANKARRAO JADHAVversusTHE STATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Returning Officer rightly relied on the experience certificate and the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner challenged the order dated 01.07.2026 of the Returning Officer who rejected his objection and accepted the nomination of respondent No.3 for the election of the Nanded District Central Co‑operative Bank. The objection alleged that the experience certificate submitted by respondent No.3 was false because the society’s declaration did not list him as a director. The court examined the objection and found it to be vague and not properly raised, concluding that the Returning Officer was justified in relying on the certificate tendered with the nomination. The court directed the petitioner to pursue the post‑election remedy available under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Returning Officer erred in accepting the nomination of respondent No.3 despite the alleged falsity of the experience certificate.
  • Whether the petitioner’s remedy lies in the writ jurisdiction or must be pursued under the post‑election provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • election
  • co-operative bank
  • nomination
  • experience certificate
  • returning officer
  • post‑election remedy
  • Section 91
  • Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:27545
                                                                             912-wp-7284-2026.odt
                                                     (1)


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 7284 OF 2026

                                   Govindrao Shankarrao Jadhav
                                               VERSUS
                   The State Co Operative Election Authority Thr Its Secretary And
                                                Others
                                                   ...
                       Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ingole Govind Rangrao
                        Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. S.K. Kadam
                 Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.
                                      S.S. Kote i/b Mr. A.V. Hon.
                                                   ...
                                             CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                                                  DATED : JULY 10, 2026

                 PER COURT :-

                 1.          Present   petition     takes   exception   to   order       dated

                 01.07.2026 passed by respondent no.2/Returning Officer thereby

                 rejecting objection of petitioner and accepting nomination of

                 respondent no.3 at election of Nanded District Central Co-operative

                 Bank for the term 2026-31.

                 2.          Mr. Ingole, learned advocate appearing for petitioner

                 submits that respondent no.3 submitted his nomination along with

                 certificate dated 26.06.2026 alleged to have issued by Guruji Abhinav

                 Krushak Utpadit Vipnan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Sindhi, Tq.

                 Umari, District Nanded to indicate that he is working as Director of

                 said society since 11.02.2020. Mr. Ingole relying upon notification

                 dated 29.03.2023 issued by Assistant Registrar, Umari submits that

                 declaration of election in respect of Guruji Abhinav Krushak Utpadit
                                                            912-wp-7284-2026.odt
                                    (2)


Vipnan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit do not show name of respondent

no.3 as elected Director and, therefore, said certificate is false.

3.           Mr. Hon, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent

no.3 invites attention of this Court to written objection raised by

petitioner before Returning Officer.

4.           Perusal of para 2 of said objection suggest that objection

was not raised properly thereby indicating objection of petitioner to

experience certificate. Perusal of objection dated 01.07.2026 at page

no.23 in this petition suggest that para 2 is worded vaguely and it is

difficult to gather exact nature of objection. In this backdrop,

Returning Officer cannot be faulted while relying upon experience

certificate tendered by respondent no.3.

5.           This Court finds that Returning Officer has rightly relied

upon certificate that was tendered along with nomination, however,

petitioner can be relegated to post election remedy under Section 91

of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to raise election

dispute.

6.           In that case, observations made herein-above would not

be impediment. With this liberty, Writ Petition stands rejected.




                                          (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)



Mujaheed//


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.