SATISH MANJABAPU NAIKversusTHE SECRETARY MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:42056
                                             1                               118.WP.7872.26.odt

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.7872 OF 2026

                     Satish Manjabapu Naik                              …   PETITIONER
                           Versus
             1.      The Secretary,
                     Maharashtra State Cooperative Election Authority,
                     Pune, Maharashtra State.

             2.      The District Cooperative Election Officer,
                     (District Central Cooperative Bank, Ahilyanagar)
                     & Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
                     Nashik Division, Nashik.

             3.      The Chief Executive Officer,
                     Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank
                     Limited, Ahilyanagar, Tq. and Dist: Ahilyanagar.

             4.      The District Deputy Registrar,
                     Cooperative Societies, Ahilyanagar.

             5.      The Assistant Registrar,
                     Cooperative Societies, Shrirampur            …     RESPONDENTS

                                                   …
             Mr. Ajeet B. Kale for Petitioner
             Mr. Vitthal H. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
             Mr. P.S. Dighe h/f. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
             Mr. S.R. Wakale, AGP for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
                                                  ...
                                       CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                  ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                        RESERVED ON              : 31.08.2026
                        PRONOUNCED ON            : 11.09.2026

             FINAL ORDER (PER: ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

             1.      By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

             India, the petitioner has put forth the following main prayers :
                               2                             118.WP.7872.26.odt

     “(B) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
          order, or direction, quashing and setting aside the
          impugned Election Communication dated 15.06.2026 and
          the Circular dated 16.06.2026 as ultra vires the
          Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the
          Election Rules, 2014, and declare the same as illegal,
          arbitrary, null and void, and contrary to the provisions of
          law.
     (C) To declare that the Respondent Authorities, including the
         Maharashtra State Cooperative Election Authority and the
         District Cooperative Election Officer, have no power or
         authority to interpret the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-
         operative Societies Act, 1960 or to create new qualifications
         or disqualifications beyond what is expressly provided in
         the Act, and that the impugned Notification is bad in law.

     (D) To direct the Respondent Authorities to follow the Bye-laws
         of the Bank and the provisions of the MCS Act, 1960 and
         the Election Rules, 2014 in letter and spirit.”

2.      The petitioner who claims to be a member of one Undirgaon

Pragat Bagaytdar Vividh Karyakari Society, (for short, ‘the said

Society’) is challenging the communication dated 15.06.2026 issued by

respondent No.2-District Co-operative Election Officer and the circular

dated 16.06.2026 issued by respondent No.1- Maharashtra State

Cooperative Election Authority, which prescribes the procedure for

nomination of delegates by member societies for the ensuing elections

of respondent No.3- District Central Co-operative Bank (for short “the

Respondent No.3/Bank”). According to the petitioner, the impugned

communication and circular are contrary to the provisions of Section

27 (10) read with Section 73 CA of the Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act, 1960 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as
                              3                              118.WP.7872.26.odt

‘the Act of 1960’).

3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondent

Nos.1 and 2 have usurped the power by issuing the said circular,

thereby laying down the qualification and disqualification of the

delegates to be nominated. He submits that the qualification and

disqualification can only be prescribed under the statute and not by

way of a circular. He further submits that, by virtue of the impugned

circular, the member society or the members of its Managing

Committee committing default would be indirectly permitted to

participate in the election process. He, therefore, urged that the

impugned communication and circular being ultra vires of the Act of

1960 and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to

Committee) Rules of 2014 deserves to be struck down.


4.    Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and

2 at the outset, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of

this Writ Petition at the instance of the petitioner, inter alia contending

that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person as the

Society of which, he claims to be a member has not challenged the

impugned communication and the circular. On the contrary, the said

society has nominated its delegate pursuant to the impugned circular.

The petitioner therefore, has no locus standi to file the present Writ
                             4                              118.WP.7872.26.odt

Petition.

5.    Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 further submits

that, taking into consideration the fact that most of the primary

societies are defaulters, in order to ensure that the member societies of

a federal society like that of a respondent No.3 Bank do not go

unrepresented, by the impugned circular the individual member of the

member society, who is not a defaulter is permitted to act as a delegate

of the said society. The said exception has been carved out only in

respect of a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society. He thus

submits that, the impugned circular is in consonance with the

provisions of Section 73 CA (1)(i)(f) (i) to (iii) of the Act of 1960 and

the orders/guidelines issued by respondent No.1 dated 10.12.2019

which are in vogue. He, therefore, urged that the Writ Petition is

devoid of any substance and therefore, the same deserves to be

dismissed.


6.    We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2, learned AGP for respondent –

State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 at length and

perused the record.


7.    It would not be out of place to mention here that, the petitioner

is espousing a cause claiming to be a member of the said society,
                               5                             118.WP.7872.26.odt

however, he has neither pleaded in the Writ Petition nor has placed on

record any resolution of the said society thereby authorizing the

petitioner to file the present Writ Petition.

8.    It would not be out of place to mention here that the said society

is deliberately not made a party respondent in the Writ Petition, on the

contrary as stated above, the said society has accepted and acted upon

the impugned circular and has nominated Viresh Bhausaheb Galande

as its delegate for representing the said society in the ensuing elections

of respondent No.3/Bank. It is also pertinent to note that out of 1414

member societies, 1367 have nominated names of their delegates to

respondent No.2. In short, nearly 1367 member societies have

accepted the impugned circular. The petitioner is neither a member

nor a voter of the respondent No.3 Bank. No prejudice is shown to

have been caused to him. Therefore, the Writ Petition at his instance is

not maintainable.


9.    Section 73 CA which provides for disqualification, reads thus :

      “[73 CA]. [Disqualification of committee and its members.]

       [(A1) ….
       (1) …..
       (i) ….
       (a) ….
       [(f) in the case of District Central Co-operative Bank or of
       the State Co-operative Bank, a member, if he,-
                             6                             118.WP.7872.26.odt

       (i) is a person who represents a society other than a
       primary agricultural credit co-operative society on the
       board of a District Central Co-operative Bank or the State
       Co-operative Bank, if the society to whom he represents
       has committed a default towards the payments of such
       Bank for a period exceeding ninety days;
       (ii) is a person who is a defaulter of a primary
       agricultural credit co-operative society or is an office
       bearer of a defaulting primary agricultural co-operative
       credit society;
       (iii) is a person who represents a society whose Managing
       Committee is superseded.]”


10.   A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would make it clear

that Section 73 CA (1)(i)(f)(i), carves out an exception to an

individual member of Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society

from being disqualified irrespective of whether the said society to

which he represents is a defaulter. We, therefore, find that the

impugned circular is in consonance with the aforesaid provisions.


11.   The election process of respondent No.3/Bank has already

commenced on 19.08.2026 with the publication of the provisional

voters’ list, including the delegates of the member societies. The last

date for filing objections to the provisional voters list was 31.08.2026

and the final voters’ list would be published on 15.09.2026. We thus

find that since, the election process has already commenced and the

preparation of provisional voters’ list being an intermediate stage in

the election process, this Court cannot interfere with the same in the
                                 7                           118.WP.7872.26.odt

light of dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru

Janardan Swami (Moingirid Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak

Sanstha and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in AIR

2001 SC 3982 and in Shaji K. Joseph vs. Viswanath and Ors., reported

in (2016) 4 SCC 429.

12.         In our considered view, the Writ Petition being devoid of any

substance deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is

dismissed.




(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                   (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)


habeeb/Aj