Writ Petition No. 6 of 2024 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:1006 wp-6-2024 grp.odt(1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6 OF 2024WITH CA/455/2024Sanjay @ Raosaheb Yadavrao WaghchaureAge : 45 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o. Dhupkheda, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad(Chattrapati Sambhajinagar)...PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State Co-operative Election Authority, Maharashtra State, PuneThrough its Commissioner/Secretary.2.District Co-operative Election OfficerAurangabad @ Regional Joint Director (Sugar),Aurangabad region, Aurangabad.3.Sant Eknath Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd, Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Administrator/InchargeManaging Director...RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 2024WITH CA/454/2024Sanjay @ Raosaheb Yadavrao WaghchaureAge : 45 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o. Dhupkheda, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad(Chattrapati Sambhajinagar)...PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State Co-operative Election Authority, Maharashtra State, PuneThrough its Commissioner/Secretary.2.District Co-operative Election OfficerAurangabad @ Regional Joint Director (Sugar),Aurangabad region, Aurangabad.3.Sant Eknath Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd, wp-6-2024 grp.odt(2) Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Administrator/Incharge Managing Director...RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO.31 OF 20241.Vasant s/o Yashwant Kale,Age:- 67 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Old Kavsan, Paithan,Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 2.Nandabai w/o Vasantrao Kale,Age:- 60 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above3.Prakash Raosaheb Labde,Age:- 61 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Mudhalwadi, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad4.Muktabai w/o Prakash Labde,Age:- 60 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above5.Suvarna Annasaheb Labde,Age:- 39 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above6.Bhausaheb Raosaheb Labde,Age:- 55 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above7.Annasaheb Raosaheb Labde,Age:- 52 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above8.Maroti Rambhau Thorat,Age:- 68 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Khanapur, Tq. Shevgaon,Dist. Aurangabad9.Kailas s/o Murlidhar Belge,Age:- 47 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad wp-6-2024 grp.odt(3)10.Bhausaheb Govind More,Age:- 77 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Katpur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad11.Ganesh Harishchandra More,Age:- 50 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above12.Jankabai Harischandra More,Age:- 76 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above13.Mandakini Suresh Rodi,Age:- 52 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Katpur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad14.Chandrakala Raosaheb Gogade,Age:- 64 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above15.Rama Maruti Satale,Age:- 48 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above16.Balaji Manik More,Age:- 62 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Katpur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad17.Prakash Laxman More,Age:- 61 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Katpur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad18.Chhababai Dada Rodi,Age:- 94 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above19.Sudhakar Bapu Gogade,Age:- 79 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above20.Bhima Dada Rodi,Age:- 60 years, Occ. Agri., wp-6-2024 grp.odt(4)R/o As above21.Kishor Ramrao Rodi,Age:- 51 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Katpur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad22.Raju Vasant Rodi,Age:- 53 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above23.Shivaji Tukaram More,Age:- 73 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above24.Kalyan Tukaram More,Age:- 62 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Kaptur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangbad25.Kalyan Kashinath Dange,Age:- 57 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above26.Kadubal Asaram More,Age:- 47 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above27.Alka Sunil Baldava,Age:- 61 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Yashwant Nagar, Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad28.Deepak Bhagwan Bobde,Age:- 24 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Issarwadi, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad29.Bapusaheb Tulshiram Kadbane,Age:- 57 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Dhangaon, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad30.Anil Ashokrao More,Age:- 31 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Katpur, Tq. Paithan, wp-6-2024 grp.odt(5)Dist. Aurangabad31.Badrinath Dhondiram Bomble,Age:- 58 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Pachalgaon, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad32.Shivaji Dhondiram Bomble,Age:- 61 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above33.Vitthal Patilba Pathade,Age:- 79 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above34.Raghunath Eknath Bomble,Age:- 69 years, Occ. Agri., R/o As above35.Jalindar Pandharinath Bomble,Age:- 55 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above 36.Baburao Sukhdev Bomble,Age:- 62 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above37.Nanasaheb Bapurao Bomble,Age:- 58 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above38.Babasaheb Suryabhan Bomble,Age:- 76 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above39.Prakash Sarjerao Bomble,Age:- 64 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above40.Sunil Ramchandra Kulkarni,Age:- 61 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Nath Galli, Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad 41.Shubhangi Sunil Kulkarni,Age:- 52 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Bhilwada, Paithan, wp-6-2024 grp.odt(6)Dist. Aurangabad42.Machhindra Ganpat Kharad,Age:- 63 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Anandpur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad43.Shobhai Machhindra Kharad,Age:- 62 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above44.Ram Machhindra Kharad,Age:- 38 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above45.Vilas Manik Kharad,Age:- 35 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above46.Namdev Vinayak Kharad,Age:- 51 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above47.Dwarka Kalyan Kharad,Age:- 55 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above48.Ram Eknath Takle (Patil),Age:- 72 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Sakhare Mangal karyalya,Plto No.13/2, Aurangabad49.Badrinarayan Eknath Takle (Patil),Age:- 75 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Rohi Lagad, Jalna50.Vasant Eknath Takle (Patil),Age:- 59 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o New Mondha, Jalna,Tq. & Dist. Jalna51.Ashok Ramkisanrao Narke,Age:- 67 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Takli Ambad, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad wp-6-2024 grp.odt(7)52.Sharad Ashokrao Narke,Age:- 41 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above53.Sitabai Ramkisan Narke,Age:- 85 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above54.Kalpana Arun Narke,Age:- 55 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above55.Sunanda Ashok Narke,Age:- 60 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above56.Shirish Arun Narke,Age:- 35 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above57.Meerabai Bapusaheb Kadbane,Age:- 55 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Dhangaon, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad58.Purnabai Harischandra Bobde,Age:- 85 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Wahegaon, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad59.Sheshrao Shamrao Gorde,Age:- 62 years, Occ. Agri.,60.Snehal Sheshrao Gorde,Age:- 36 years, Occ. Agri.,61.Alok Shehshrao Gorde,Age:- 33 years, Occ. Agri.,Petitioner No.59 to 61, R/o Balanagar, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad62.Shaukat Pathan Patel Khan, Age:- 45 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Changadpuri, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad wp-6-2024 grp.odt(8)63.Baban Ganpat Bomble, Age:- 45 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Pachalgaon, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad64.Digambar Rangnath Ravas, Age:- 45 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above65.Vishwanath Kashinath Ravas,Age:- 33 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above66.Pramod Bapurao Rodi,Age:- 59 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Katpur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad67.Sunil Digambar Rodi,Age:- 40 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above68.Balaji Sakharam Rodi,Age:- 60 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above69.Raghunath Baburao Ghodke,Age:- 58 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Wahegaon, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad70.Nivrutti Laxman Bobde,Age:- 54 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above71.Ankush Sahebrao Bobde,Age:- 63 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above72.Badrinath Pandurang Bankar, Age:- 56 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Shrungarwadi, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad73.Shankar Pandurang Bankar,Age:- 63 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above wp-6-2024 grp.odt(9)74.Vishnu Pandurang Bankar,Age:- 56 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above75.Harishchandra Pandurang Bankar,Age:- 61 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above76.Rambhau Rangnath Bankar,Age:- 56 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above77.Ankushrao Rangnath Bankar,Age:- 59 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o As above78.Nanasaheb Ramnath Najan,Age:- 60 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Hingani, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad79.Dattatray Babasaheb Aute,Age:- 52 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Apegaon, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad ...PETITIONERSVERSUS1.The State Co-operative Election Authority, Maharashtra State, Mumbai2.District Co-operative Election Officer@ Regional Joint Director (Sugar),Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar3.Sant Eknath Co-operative Sugar Factory, Eknath Nagar, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad Through its Administrator ..RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO.23 OF 20241.Katpur Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari,Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Deepak Devichand More, wp-6-2024 grp.odt(10) Age:- 36 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Katpur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)2.Nandar Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Ravindra Shivajirao Kale, Age:- 48 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Nandar, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)3.Avde Unchegaon Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Eknath s/o Kacharu Belge, Age:- 42 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Nandar, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)4.Vihamandva Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Bhausaheb Sarjerao Kale, Age:- 40 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Vihamandva, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)5.Chanakwadi Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Pandurang s/o Laxman Patkal, Age:- 55 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Chanakwadi, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)6.Pachalgaon Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Badrinath Dhondiram Bomble, Age:- 58 years, Occ. Agri.,
Legal Reasoning
wp-6-2024 grp.odt(11) R/o Pachalgaon, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)7.Takli Ambad Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Sharad s/o Ashok Narke, Age:- 42 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Takli Ambad, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)8.Saygaon Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Badam s/o Uttamrao Daspute, Age:- 45 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Saygaon, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)9.Paithan Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Eknath s/o Narhar Khisti, Age:- 42 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad(Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)10.Balanagar Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Pravin s/o Laxman Gorde, Age:- 55 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Takli Ambad, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)11.Amrutvahini Mahila Dudhutpadak SahakariSanstha, Indegaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its SecretarySharad Shripatrao NavtharAge:- 41 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Indegaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad wp-6-2024 grp.odt(12) (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)12.Mudalwadi Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Ganesh Rambhau Jadhav,Age:- 45 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Mudalwadi, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)13. Dhangaon Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Vishnu Apppasaheb Bobade,Age:- 40 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Dhangaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)14.Dhakephal Vividh Karyakary Seva Sahakari Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Authorized Person,Ravindra Bhaurao Sisode,Age:- 38 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Dhakephal, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar)...PETITIONERSVERSUS1.The State Co-operative Election Authority, Maharashtra State, Mumbai2.District Co-operative Election Officer@ Regional Joint Director (Sugar),Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar3.Sant Eknath Co-operative Sugar Factory, Eknath Nagar, Tq. Paithan, Dist. AurangabadThrough its Administrator ..RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO.371 OF 20241.Sulochana w/o Suresh Daspute, wp-6-2024 grp.odt(13) Age:- 50 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Maygaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar 2.Chatrabhuj Narayan BabarAge:- 45 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Indegaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar ...PETITIONERSVERSUS1.The State Co-operative Election Authority, Maharashtra State, Mumbai2.District Co-operative Election Officer@ Regional Joint Director (Sugar),Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar3.Sant Eknath Co-operative Sugar Factory, Eknath Nagar, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chhatrapati SambhajinagarThrough its Administrator ..RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO.372 OF 2024Dipak s/o Devichand More,Age : 36 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. Katpur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar ..PETITIONERVERSUS1]State Co-operative Election AuthorityMaharashtra State, Pune.through its Commissioner/Secretary2]District Co-operative Election Officer,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar @Regional Joint Director (Sugar)Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Region,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.(Copies of Resp. no. 1 and 2 to be served throughStanding Counsel of Respondent No.1 Bombay High CourtBench at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar) wp-6-2024 grp.odt(14)3]Sant Eknath Sugar Factory Ltd.Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagarthrough its Administrator/InchargeManaging Director ..RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO.380 OF 2024Ranjangaon Dandga Vikas KaryakarySeva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd.,Rajangaon Dandga, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Through its ChairmanEjaj Ahmed Ismail Khan Pathan,Age : 64 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. Rajangaon Dandga, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar ..PETITIONER VERSUS1]State Co-operative Election AuthorityMaharashtra State, Pune.through its Commissioner/Secretary2]District Co-operative Election Officer,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar @Regional Joint Director (Sugar)Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Region,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.(Copies of Resp. no. 1 and 2 to be served throughStanding Counsel of Respondent No. 1 Bombay High CourtBench at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar) 3]Sant Eknath Sugar Factory Ltd.Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagarthrough its Administrator/InchargeManaging Director. ..RESPONDENTS... Advocate for Petitioners in WP/6/2024, 31/2024, 8/2024 : Mr. M.S.Deshmukh h/f Mr. Dhananjay S. PatilAdvocate for Petitioners in W.P./372/2024 & 380/2024 : Mr.Dhananjay S. Patil a/w Mr. Rahul Cheble and Mr. S.R. Mantri wp-6-2024 grp.odt(15)Advocates for the Petitioners in WP/23/2024 & 371/2024 : Mr. S.S.GangakhedkarAdvocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in WP/6/2024, 8/2024,371/2024, 372/2024, 380/2024 : Mr. V.H. Dighe Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in W.P./31/2024 & 23/2024 : Mr.S.K. Kadam Advocate for Applicants in civil applications : Mr. K.J. Suryawanshia/w Mr. N.B. KhandareAdvocate for Respondent No.3 (Authorized Officer/Administrator) inall writ petitions : Mr. D.J. Choudhari & Mr. P.K. Nikam... CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J. RESERVED ON : JANUARY 11, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 16, 2024JUDGMENT :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finallywith the consent of the parties. 2.By these writ petitions, an order dated 14.12.2023 ofDistrict Co-operative Election Officer cum Regional Assistant Director(Sugar), (DCEO for short), Chattrapati Sambhaji Nagar(Aurangabad)/respondent No.2 passed on 14.12.2023 has beenimpugned.3.The petitioner, namely Sanjay Yadavrao Waghchaure, hadraised the following objections to the provisional voters list publishedon 24.11.2023 for the elections of Managing Committee of SantEknath Sugar Factory Ltd, Taluka Paithan, District ChattrapatiSambhajinagar:(i)The voter list is an outcome of fraudulent activities. wp-6-2024 grp.odt(16)(ii)So long as around the original 18,645 members wereinappropriately dealt with by modifying the membership list.(iii) The provisional voter list violated Section 25-A of theMaharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ( the M.C.S. Act forshort). No proceedings contemplated under that Section wereundertaken to remove the members. Still, many members wereremoved from the list at the whims and fancies of the presentManaging Committee. (iv) A large number of members who were not the residents of thearea of operation of the Society were incorporated as members of thesaid Society. (v)A large number of members who were holding no landsrequired as per the law were incorporated.(vi) No audit was conducted to arrive at the conclusive figures of themembers as is expected under law.(vii) Around 5000 members who did not satisfy the basicqualifications to be members have been shown as members of theSociety. Many members have not satisfied the sugarcane supplycriteria for five continuous years. Hence, they were not qualified asper clause No.17(A)(3)(IV).(viii) The applications for transferring the shares made by the legalheirs of the original members were not decided, and the provisionalvoters list was prepared hastily. wp-6-2024 grp.odt(17)(ix)Respondent No.2 has not properly appreciated the concept ofBye-laws No.6 and 8 of the Society's Bye-laws.(x) The voters who were disqualified under Section 27(10) of theM.C.S. Act have been approved as valid voters in the provisionalvoters list. Unless the member is legally disqualified for the reasons ofdefaulter, such members cannot be ineligible to be a member or voteras maintained as per Schedule-I of the M.C.S. Act. In the present case,there is no reference to the submission of I-Register; evenmaintenance of the same is strictly not in compliance with the M.C.S.Act and by-laws, which provide additional qualification ordisqualification. The provisional voter list was inconsistent withSection 38 r/w Schedule-I of the M.C.S. Act.(xi) Respondent No.2 has not appreciated the certificates issued bythe Talathi, incurring disqualification of the members included in thevoters list correctly.4.The other objections in other petitions were ;(i) The agriculturists who were not residents of the area of theoperation of the Society were added to the voters list.(ii) The agriculturists with no land were illegally admitted asmembers and added to the voter list.(iii)A minor not qualified to be a member was admitted as amember of Society. wp-6-2024 grp.odt(18)(iv) The members were not defaulters for not paying the differenceof raised share value. 5.Heard the respective learned counsels at length.6.The following points arise for consideration :i)Did the petitioners/objectors have a locus to raise objections todeleting and adding the names of the members from the provisionalvoters list?ii)What is the scope of enquiry on the objection under Rule 11 ofthe M.C.S. Election Committee Rules, 2014?iii)Whether the issuance of notice to the persons against whom theobjections were noticed was essential in the facts and circumstancesof the case?iv)Whether the provisional list is defective for changing the cut-offdate?v)Does By-law no.8 extend three years to clear the difference ofraised share value as provided under By-law no.6?vi)Whether the judgment of the Division Bench of this Courtpassed in Writ Petition No.15083 of 2023 filed by the petitionerSanjay @ Raosaheb Yadavrao Waghchaure Vs. the State ofMaharashtra and others with other connected writ petitions decidedon 08.01.2024 has bearing on these petitions?As to Point No.(i) : wp-6-2024 grp.odt(19)7.Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh S.Deshmukh, for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 6 of 2024 and 8 of2024 vehemently argued that the Managing Director In charge had nopower to submit the voter list. It was not in the prescribed form E-III(I). Respondent No.2 had to publish the list, but he did not. Thepetitioner is admittedly a member of the Society. Hence, under Rule11(i) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election toCommittee) Rules, 1914 ( the Rules 1914 for short), he has a locus toobject to the provisional voters list. It was a composite objection andshould have been entertained as a large number of voters have beendeleted/removed. He referred to Sections 11, 25, 25-A, 35, 38 and 40of the M.C.S. Act and vehemently argued that in no way the personswho had been expelled/removed from the provisional voters list werenot disqualified from being voters. He also argued that the Society didnot follow the procedure for removal/expulsion of the members.8.On the point of the locus standi of the objectors, relyingon the case of Babasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and Ors Vs. The State ofMaharashtra, 2016 (1) ALL MR 777 of this Court, the learned counselfor respondent No.3, argued that no member of the Society other thanthe defaulter could raise objections about delisting him from theprovisional voters list. The learned counsel, Mr. Nikam, hasvehemently argued for respondents Nos 3 in Writ Petition Nos.8 of2024, 372 of 2024 and 380 of 2024 that the members against whom wp-6-2024 grp.odt(20)the objections were raised were not the parties to the objections. InWrit Petition No.6 of 2024, referring to pages nos.45 and 46 of WritPetition No.6 of 2024, he pointed out that the objections do not bearthe signatures of the objectors. He added that all the objections werestereotypes. In Writ Petition No.6 of 2024, the objector, SwabhimaniShetkari Sanghatna, was not a member of the Society. Hence, theirobjections were not tenable.9.Advocate Mr. Dighe for respondent No.1 argued thatthe petitioner, namely Sanjay Yadavrao Waghchaure, had nolocus to raise the objection for the members who did notindividually raise the objections. He cannot raise the objectionin a representative capacity. He was not an aggrieved person.He was not the member disqualified to be a voter. Therefore,the objection for the members who were not listed in theprovisional voters list could not be considered. Rule 11 of theElection Rules, 2014, debars from raising objections for the othermembers. The Rule is specific that the members should have raisedtheir objections individually. The objections were vague. 10.Learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh for the petitioners in WritPetition No.6 and 8 of 2024 replied that the case of BabasahebBapusaheb Patil (supra) did not deal with Rule 11 of the ElectionRules. The findings were without the spirit of the said Rule. Hence, itis not binding in view of the facts of this case. wp-6-2024 grp.odt(21)11.The petitioner Sanjay Waghchaure has raised theobjection before respondent No.2 under his signature for a fewpersons, and the rest of the list of the persons was signed by ShriMauli P. Mule, President, Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatna. Objectionsin the names of Shivaji Shagwat Landage, Sadhna Shivaji Landage,and Shilabai Bhagwat Landage do not bear their signatures, and theobjection on page no.63 neither discloses the name of the objector norhis signature.12.The petitioners in Writ Petition No.371 of 2024 raised theobjections in person that they were the Sugarcane Producer membersof the Sugar Factory. However, their names have been deleted fromthe provisional voters list. Hence, their names be added. Theirobjections have been illegally rejected because they did not produceevidence of their membership.13.The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 372 of 2024 and 380of 2024 raised the objection that the persons named in theirobjections have been illegally added to the voters list because they donot reside in the area of the operation of the Society and have noland. One of the reasons for rejecting their objection was that they didnot produce evidence of their membership. The rejection means thatthey were not the member of the Society.14.Both parties interpreted Rule 11 of the Rules 2014.Hence, for ready reference, the Rule is reproduced; wp-6-2024 grp.odt(22)"11. Claims and objections to the provisional list of voters andthe final list of voters for the societies having Society orsocieties and individuals as members.(1) When any provisional list of voters is published forinviting claims and objections, any omission or error inrespect of names or addresses or other particulars in the listmay be brought to the notice of the District Co-operativeElection Officer Taluka or war Co-operative Election Officer inwriting by any member of the Society concerned who is voteror any representative authorized to vote on behalf of suchSociety during office hours within ten days from the date ofpublication of the provisional list of voters. (2) …………"15.The above Rule provides for objection to the provisionaland final voters list by any member of the Society concerned.However, he shall be a voter. Where a society is a voter, theauthorized representative may raise objections.16.There is no quarrel that the District Co-operative ElectionOfficer has to decide the claim and objections to the provisional list ofthe voters and the final list of the voters for the Society having Societyor societies and individuals as members as provided under Rule 11 ofRules, 2014. It is evident from the impugned order that a fairopportunity of hearing was granted to the objectors. The claims andobjections were considered and decided within the ambit and scope ofRule 11 of Rules 2014. The petitioners have no case that the defaulterin person had raised objections. wp-6-2024 grp.odt(23)17.Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Rule 11of Rules 2014, unambiguously provide that any member of theSociety may raise the objection. The member who is in default is notnecessarily an objector. He indirectly argued that the membersinterested in contesting the Election are concerned with the legalityand validity of the voter list. He is the watchdog on the voter list. Heprevents the members/voters not entitled to vote from being voters.Rule 11 was not considered in the case of Babasaheb Bapusaheb Patil(supra). Hence, it is not applicable to the case at hand.18.This Court, in the case of Babasaheb Bapusaheb Patil(supra), on the fact that the objections of the petitioners to theirexclusion in the voters list of the societies were considered by thereturning officer discussing the Election Rules, 2014, in paragraphNo.6, observed thus :"However, in the present petition, general prayers are madeagainst all others whose names were deleted by following dueprocedure of law by the concerned Society initially andconfirmed by the authority later on. The members whose nameswere deleted did not raise objections at the relevant stage ofproceedings after provisional list published by the Society. Theissue even, if any, whether they are the defaulters or not needs tobe objected and/or raised by the concerned member only. TheSociety and authority are under obligation to consider theobjections raised by the individual member as the rules asreferred above contemplate "the hearing and the decision to begiven for and against the member concerned". This itself means,if there is no objection raised by the defaulter and/ or member wp-6-2024 grp.odt(24)who is delisted from the provisional list or other list atappropriate time, no third person and/or the member on theirbehalf specifically when they are declared defaulters, insist toinclude their names, when they themselves never tookappropriate steps within the statutory period. There is nothingon record to show that all other members have been any powerof authority and/or provide them an authority in writing to raiseobjection on their behalf."19.With the above observations, it has been held that thelocus of such third person/members in this background to file suchobjection and to insist on others' inclusion without removing the tag'defaulter' by those defaulter members, in my view, is not permissible.This Court, in the above case, has considered the relevant rules inforce with effect from 11.09.2014 called the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules 2013 andconsidered Rules ranging from 6 to 11, which deal with thepreparation of voters list in Part III of the said Rules. Therefore, itcould not be accepted that Rule 11 was not considered in BabasahebBapusaheb Patil (supra).20.In this case, the objectors were not the members inperson, or the members who were delisted from the list did notindividually come forward. As discussed above, a few applicationswere filed without signatures, and they were not yet admitted asmembers of the Society. One of the signatories to the objector, namelythe President of Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatna, was not prima facie wp-6-2024 grp.odt(25)satisfied that he was a member of the Society. Learned counsel for therespondents has correctly pointed out that since the said union is nota member of the Society, its President has no locus to raise theobjection.21.In view of the above facts and law, point no.1 is answeredthat the person other than the defaulters/members not listed in theprovisional voters list has no locus to raise the objections before theDCEO/respondent No.2.As to Point Nos.(ii) and (v) together :22.These issues have been hotly contested by arguing thatthe objections that were proved were not considered on the groundthat such objections were beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.2.The objections, in brief, were that many voters who are not defaultershad been deleted from the provisional voters' list. Many voters whoare not residents of the area of the operation of Society have beenadded to the voter list, and the agriculturists who have no land havealso been added to the voter list. Such voters should be deleted fromthe voter list. The minor who was not qualified to be a member of theSociety has also been listed as a voter. The evidence placed on recordwas not considered. Bye-law No.8 of the Society extends a year to paythe difference amount of the raised share value, and it was yet to beover on the day of preparing the voters list. Respondent No. 2 did not wp-6-2024 grp.odt(26)consider this legal aspect to hold that the members who have beendeleted were not disqualified.23.Learned counsel for petitioners Mr. Deshmukh pressedinto service Section 26 of the M.C.S. Act and argued that the saidSection would not apply to the case at hand as none of the memberswere disqualified or defaulters. He argued that Bye-law Nos. 6 and 8should be read together. Referring to Bye-law no.8, he vehementlyargued that after the last notice calling upon the shareholders todeposit a difference amount of raised share value, the Society was towait for one year from 08.08.2023. Therefore, not paying thedifference amount of the raised share value would not disentitle themembers to qualify to vote at the Election. Since one year after thelast notice dated 08.08.2023 was not over, they cannot be branded asdefaulters as provided under Section 26 of the M.C.S. Act. Referringto the impugned order, he submitted that respondent No.2, on the onehand, denied deciding the objections, holding that the enquiry aboutobjection is a summary proceeding and he has no jurisdiction todecide the objection as regards the members who had no lands andnot the residents within the area of the operation of the Society. Onthe other hand, he relied upon Section 38 of the M.C.S. Act andillegally held that the register maintained by the Society is prima facieevidence of the membership. He also argued that respondent No.2 hasdeliberately not exercised the powers to consider the legal and proper wp-6-2024 grp.odt(27)objections. Relying on the case of Ankushbhau s/o Juglal Beghale andothers Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Co-operation, Marketing and Textile, Mantralaya Mumbai and others ofNagpur Bench passed in Writ Petition No.1686 of 2022 dated13.04.2022, he argued that the entry in the register of members has apresumptive value. There was no evidence in rebuttal by the Society.Therefore, members shown in the I-Register should have been listedin the voters list. Respondent No. 2 did not pay heed to the statutorypresumption and passed erroneous orders. 24.Learned counsel Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar for thepetitioners in Writ Petition Nos.23 of 2024, 31 of 2024 and 371 of2024 has vehemently argued that the petitioners moved objectionindividually in writing for adding their names. The term of the earlierbody was over on 31.07.2021. Though the share value was raised in2013, they cast votes in the Election of 2016. Therefore, their namesshould not have been deleted from the provisional voters list. Hereferred to the impugned order, page no.132, and argued that, as perthe Auditor's report, 7,116 members were disqualified. Manyapplications from the legal heirs of deceased members weredeliberately kept pending. The powers under Sections 25 and 25-Awere of the Registrar only. He also argued that it was brought to thenotice of respondent No.2 that the audit report was defective. As perBy-law no.8, the notice should be for three years. The report did not wp-6-2024 grp.odt(28)mention the notice dated 06.11.2023; hence, the members could notbe disqualified. Not recording the entries of the legal heirs is contraryto the law. The agriculturists outside the sugar factory's operationalarea are not entitled to become members. Around 5000 members ofsimilar type were added to the list. In a nutshell, he would submitthat the provisional voter list was defective mainly on the groundsthat the agriculturists who are not the residents of the operationalarea of the sugar factory and have no land have been illegally listed inthe provisional voter list. For petitioners in Writ Petition No.371 of2024, he argued that the petitioners replied to the notice dated08.08.2023 calling upon them to pay the difference of the increasedshare value on 27.09.2023. The objection was raised that generalmeetings were not called in the last three years. The balance sheetand audit report were not supplied to the members. No intimationabout the liabilities was deliberately given for the last three years.These material aspects were deliberately not considered, and theobjections were outrightly rejected. Referring to By-law no.8, he againsubmits that to date, no action has been taken to forfeit the defaulters'share for not paying the difference amount of raised share value. Onthe contrary, from time to time, they have extended the period to paythe difference of the raised share amount by issuing notices. Thepetitioner did not violate a statutory provision to be disqualified fromvoting. Considering this fact, the names of the eligible members wp-6-2024 grp.odt(29)should not have been deleted from the voter list, and members whowere not qualified could be added to the voter list.25.Learned counsel Mr. Dhanjay S. Patil for petitioners inWrit Petition No.372 of 2024 has argued that the objections wereraised that Village Vijaypur was not in the area of the operation of thefactory and the agriculturist of Village Anantpur had no agriculturalland. One of the members was the minor. Her age proof was alsoplaced before respondent No.2. However, that document was notconsidered. Similarly, the agriculturists from Village Dhakephal didnot have agricultural lands. Hence, they were not entitled to becomethe members of the Society. This fact was also brought to the notice ofrespondent no.2. He referred to Bye-law no.17-A and argued that aperson below 18 years could not become a member, but the minorwas admitted as a member of the Society. However, this materialdefect and illegality have not been considered.26.The learned counsel for petitioners in Writ PetitionNo.380 of 2024 argued that the objection was raised for the illegalinclusion of the Societies. These societies were not co-operativesocieties and had the sugarcane business. Those societies had theobject of social and vocational services. These facts were brought tothe notice of respondent no.2, but such a serious objection has beenillegally rejected. The objection was rejected on technical groundsthat the Vakalatnama does not bear the signature. Another illegal wp-6-2024 grp.odt(30)reason was that no proof of depositing the difference amount wasproduced. The objector did not produce evidence that he is a memberof the Society. However, his name was included in the provisionalvoters list.27.Per contra, learned counsel Mr. V.H. Dighe forrespondents nos.1 and 2 argued that the share amount was raised in2013 by a resolution. Individual notices calling upon the members topay the difference amount of the raised share value were served uponthem. The members who failed to pay the difference amount weredis-entitled to be voters on the provisional voter list. It is not the casethat the members qualified to be voters were deleted. Only themembers who were not qualified to be voters have been deleted.Respondent No.2 has discussed the facts and his jurisdiction in detail.A fair opportunity was granted to the persons who appeared beforehim. They were heard in detail. For respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WritPetition No.382 of 2024, he replied that page no.64 i.e the age proofof the so-called voter, was produced for the first time before thisCourt. Hence, such an objection cannot be considered in this writpetition.28.Learned counsel Mr. S.K. Kadam for respondent nos.1and 2 in Writ Petition No.23 of 2024 and 31 of 2024 has vehementlyargued that the person may be a member, but he may not be a voter.The member and voter are two different concepts. The M.C.S. Act wp-6-2024 grp.odt(31)provides for the procedure for preparing the voters list and thequalifications of the members to be voters. Since a large number ofmembers did not pay the difference amount of the share value evenafter notice, they became disqualified to be voters, and hence, theirnames were not included in the provisional voters list. He hasvehemently argued that the statutory period to pay the difference ofraised share value was not over in 2016. Hence, they were allowed tocast votes in the Election of 2016. He referred to Section 26 of theM.C.S. Act, particularly the first proviso and argued that the membershall not exercise the rights unless he has made such payments to theSociety in respect of membership or acquired such interest in theSociety and he has to pay the difference of increased minimumcontribution after the reasonable notice. From time to time, thenotices, as required under the second Proviso to Section 26 of theM.C.S. Act, were issued to the members to pay the difference.However, they failed to pay the difference in raised share value;therefore, they are not entitled to be listed on the voters' list. He alsoreferred to Section 23 and argued that under its powers, theCommittee had framed the Bye-laws nos.6 and 8 by following the dueprocedure of law. Its validity was never challenged. He submits thatthe order impugned before the Court was legally valid and correct. 29.Advocate Mr. Nikam referred to Bye-law no.17-A sub-clause (2) and argued that in case the concerned person is from the wp-6-2024 grp.odt(32)joint family, he has a right based upon the minimum acre of thesugarcane, in such a situation, the names of such persons should be in7/12 extract is not essential. Therefore, barely having no name in the7/12 extract is not the test to determine whether the person listed inthe provisional voter list has or has no agricultural land within theoperational area of the sugar factory. The question whether the personhas land or not or resides outside the area of the operation of thefactory is dealt with under Section 11 of the M.C.S. Act. RespondentNo. 2 had a limited scope to decide such objections under Rule 11. Hehas no jurisdiction to touch the business of the Committee accepting,removing or denying the membership. Referring to Bye-law no.8, heargued that it is about the confiscation of the shares if the memberfails to pay the difference amount of the raised share value withinthree years. However, for such confiscation, the Committee mustgrant the member one year. The plain reading of this Rule does notshow that it extends the period of three years to deposit the differenceamount. Three years were over on 29.07.2016. The first notice wasissued on 12.04.2021, the reminder notices were issued on08.08.2023, and the Newspaper publication notice was published on17.08.2023, calling upon the members to pay the difference amountof the raised share value. All members in arrears to pay the differenceamount were served individually. Even then, the members who werenot listed in the provisional voter list did not pay the difference wp-6-2024 grp.odt(33)amount of the increased share value in time. The counsel for thepetitioners has misinterpreted Bye-law no.8 and misconceived thatextended further one year to pay the difference of raised share value.30.He further argued in Writ Petition No.23 of 2024 that allthe societies had paid the amount after the cut-off date. Hence, theywere not eligible to become the voter. In Writ Petition No.31 of 2024,he further argued that 78 objectors are still defaulters. Only petitionerno.1 had paid the amount due; hence, he was correctly added to thevoters list. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.32 and 34 were notmembers of the sugar factory. Hence, they had no right to claim thathe was the voter of the proposed Election. The petitioner no.1 in WritPetition NO.371 of 2024 was a defaulter, and petitioner no.2 was themember. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the case of DhondibaParshuram Kakade Vs. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar KarkhanaLtd, 1979 Mh.L.J. 311 on the point of the scope of enquiry by theelection officers. In the said case, the Additional Collector, decidingthe claims, directed the inclusion of 36 names out of 115 claimants inthe provisional voters list. Under this premise, the Bombay HighCourt, referring to Section 11 of the M.C.S. Act, held that anyquestion pertaining to a person being an agriculturist or not or aperson residing in the area of the operation of the Society or not shallbe decided by the Registrar. In para 43, it has been observed that itmust also be remembered that the scope of enquiry by the Collector wp-6-2024 grp.odt(34)under Rule 6 is not only limited in nature but is also extremelysummary. He relied on the case of Zamsingh s/o Bhuraji Yerne Vs.District Co-operative Election Officer and others, a decision of NagpurBench in Writ Petition No.1146 of 2023 dated 09.03.2023 and arguedthat the question whether the petitioner was defaulter of the Societyconsidering that the allegations of fraud was made in this regard wasbeyond the pale and purview of the enquiry as contemplated underRule 11 of the Rules of 2014. He further relied on the case of JalinderTukaram Kharat Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2022 (3) Mh.L.J. 547,argued that the nature of objections could only be considered underSection 11 of the M.C.S. Act, and the said legal position has beenreiterated in the said case. He further relied on the case of PundalikVs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chandrapur andOrs, (1991) 2 SCC 423 and argued that once the member incurreddisqualification on the ground of default will cease to be a member ofthe Committee. He also relied on the case of Shivaji Appasaheb Shejuland ors Vs. The District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies andOrs, 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 832, and argued that this Court held that firstly,notice to each member ought to have been given and furtherreasonable period ought to have been given by the Society to themember to make the payment. Pasting of notice in the Society is notsufficient in view of the requirement of the second proviso to Section26 of the M.C.S. Act. The second proviso controls the first proviso. He wp-6-2024 grp.odt(35)further argued that in this case, individual notices were served uponthe members, and in addition, the paper publication was also made.31.On the point of the cut-off date, he relied on the case ofManchak Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors, 2011 (3) Mh.L.J.833. In this case, the dispute was about the payment of the crop loan.The crop loans were paid after the cut-off date for filing thenominations. Under this premise, this Court held that if there was norepayment and postponement of recovery, a notice to the borrowersand guarantors should be served, calling upon them to makerepayment within a specific time. Both respondents were aware oftheir defaults and attempted to clear outstanding loans only after thelast date. In the facts of the case that the loan was tried to be repaidafter the cut-off date, the Court held that there was no breach ofprinciples of natural justice. Finally, the Court rejected the nominationof the respondents for the reason that they had attempted to clear theoutstanding loan only after the last date of nomination.32.Section 26 of the M.C.S. Act disqualifies a member fromexercising rights who is in default of payment to the Society, and if hefails to pay the increased share value, provided, the Society shouldgive a notice of demand and reasonable period to comply with.33.Section 11 of the M.C.S. Act speaks of the powers of theRegistrar to decide certain questions. Whether a person is anagriculturist or not, or whether any person resides in the area of wp-6-2024 grp.odt(36)operation of the Society or not, are decided by the Registrar underthis Section.34.Bye-law no.6 provided the outer limit to pay thedifference money of the raised share value and the mode of payment.The member was either to pay the difference amount by cash or byintimating the Society to deduct the difference amount from the billsfor sugarcane.35.Bye-law no.8, which the petitioners have interpreted asextending a further one year to clear/pay the difference amount,provides that if the member does not pay the difference amountwithin a period as per the bye-laws, the Society will forfeit theamount of such share and the deposit amount of such shares.However, before forfeiting such an amount, such a member should begiven a year. The Society should give a show cause notice by aregistered post of fifteen days to the member asking why such anamount should not be forfeited.36.Section 25 of the M.C.S. Act provides for the cessation ofmembership. A person shall cease to be a member of a society on hisresignation on its acceptance, or by transferring his whole shares orinterest to another member, or on his death, or removal or expulsionfrom the Society, or on the dissolution of the Society, company.37.Under Section 25-A of the M.C.S. Act, the Society has toremove the name of the member who has ceased to be a member wp-6-2024 grp.odt(37)from the membership register or who stands disqualified by or underthe provisions of the Act.38.The Society in 2013, by following a due procedure, raisedthe face value of shares from Rs.100 to 10,000 and determined threeyears to pay the difference amount by framing Bye-law No. 6. It is notdisputed that the said period of three years was over on 29.07.2016.A last notice was issued on 08.08.2023. It is admitted that manymembers did not pay the difference amount of raised share value,though notices were served on them from time to time.39.The petitioners have a contention that unless the name ofthe member has been removed from the register of members,membership continues, and for any reason other than the cessation,removal, expulsion, resignation, transfer of shares or death. Thepersons who have not been added to the voters list were the memberson the register of members. The said register is the source forpreparing the voter list. Hence, deleting their names from the voterlist is illegal. Respondent No.2 had jurisdiction to decide suchobjections.40.Rule 6 of the Rules 2014 provides for the preparation ofthe provisional voter list. Under that Rule, the active members shallbe included in the provisional voters list as laid down in Sections 26and 27 of the M.C.S. Act. wp-6-2024 grp.odt(38)41.Section 25 of the M.C.S. Act does not say that anymember in default to pay the member fee or the difference amount ofrise in the share value shall cease to be a member of the Society.Similarly, Section 25-A also does not say the member should beremoved from the membership register for the above reasons.Reading Rule 6 with Sections 26 and 27, it is explicit that themembers who are defaulters as provided therein shall not be added tothe provisional voters list. The learned counsel Mr. Kadam, hascorrectly argued that to be a member and a voter are two distinctconcepts. A voter must be a member, but a member may not be avoter. Therefore, it could not be accepted that Section 26 of theM.C.S. Act does not apply to the present case.42.In the case of Dhondiba (supra) relied upon by therespondents on the scope of enquiry under Rule 11, it has been heldthat the inquiry on objection to the voters by the Election Officer islimited and extremely summary. Section 11 of the M.C.S. Actexplicitly empowers the Registrar to decide whether a person is anagriculturist or not or a person is a resident of the are of the operationof the Society. Reading this Section and the scope of enquiry underRule 11, it is explicit that the objections regarding the members thatthey are not the residents of the areas of operation of the Society andfew are not the agriculturists were not within the ambit of Rule 11and jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2. wp-6-2024 grp.odt(39)43.Bye-laws Nos.6 and 8 are distinct. Bye-law No. 6 hasprovided the outer limit of three years to pay the difference amount ofthe raised share value. Bye-law No.8 seems to be a penal action toforfeit the shares that were with the Society if the member fails to paythe difference amount of raised share value within a year by givingfifteen days' notice. Both these Bye-law are independent. These By-laws cannot be read together to interpret that Bye-law No. 8 extends afurther period of a year to clear the difference in the amount of theraised share value.44.There was a substance in the arguments of learnedcounsel Mr. Kadam that since three years to pay the differenceamount were not completed in 2016, the members in arrears of thedifference amount of raised share value were not removed from thevoter list. Hence, they were allowed to vote in the Election of 2016.The petitioners cannot take the benefit of such a past.45.It has been established that before deleting the names ofmembers in default to pay the difference amount, the notices wereserved upon them individually on 12.04.2021 and 08.08.2023, andthe Newspaper notice was published on 17.08.2023. Learned counselfor respondent no.3 has correctly pointed out that 78 petitioners inWrit Petition No.31 of 2024 were the defaulters. The petitioner no.1in Writ Petition No. 371 of 2024 was also the defaulter. All thesocieties in Writ Petition No. 23 of 2024 paid the amount after the wp-6-2024 grp.odt(40)cut-off date. Hence, they were not added to the provisional voter list.The findings of Respondent No.2 in this regard are legal and correct.In view of the facts of the petition, the answer to Point No.(ii) is thatRespondent No.2 has a summary power to make an enquiry on theobjections, and the objection which falls under Section 11 of theM.C.S. Act is not within his jurisdiction. The answer to point No.(v) isthat Bye-law No. 8 does not extend a year period in addition to theperiod of three years as prescribed in Bye-law No.6 to pay thedifference in the raised share value in share. As to Point No.(ii) :46. The vehement arguments have been advanced thatrespondent no.2 failed to issue the notice to the members againstwhom the objections were raised. The learned counsels for therespondents have submitted that it was primarily the objector's dutyto give their details and request respondent No.2 to issue themnotices. Secondly, none of the members who were deleted from thevoter list appeared in person, raising objections against deleting theirnames from the voters list. The list submitted with the objectionbarely shows the names of the persons. However, no details of theiraddress were given. Therefore, there was no question of issuing thenotices at his behest. That apart, the burden was on the petitioners toprove the objections. This Court, while answering point No.(ii) heldthat the objections raised were not within the ambit and scope of Rule wp-6-2024 grp.odt(41)11, and only the Registrar has the power to deal with such objections.In this set of facts, this Court is of the view that non-issuing the noticeto the persons whose names were deleted and added to theprovisional voter list was not essential, and this point is answeredaccordingly. As to Point No.(iv) : 47.Learned counsel Mr. Gangakhedkar argued that theRegional Deputy Director (Sugar) had declared 01.02.2023 as a cut-off date by his order dated 20.03.2023. However, without the noticeand knowledge of the voters, the State Co-operative ElectionAuthority ('SCEA' for short) has changed the cut-off date from01.02.2023 to 1.10.2023. It was the misuse of the powers. Since themembers were not made aware of the change in the cut-off date, theydid not get an opportunity to make the deficit good. It was anillegality on the part of the respondents. It has also been argued thatSociety meetings were not called for three years. The balance sheetand audit report were not supplied to the members of the Society. 48.Learned counsel Mr. Kadam argued that the earlierCommittee did not submit the provisional voter list. Hence, theRegistrar appointed the authorized officer as empowered underSection 77-A of the M.C.S. Act. The cut-off date was not changed todeprive any voter. The cut-off date was changed as the Governmenthad postponed the elections. Rule 6 of the Rules 2014, second proviso wp-6-2024 grp.odt(42)provides that in case of societies where the elections could not be heldbefore the expiry of the term of the Committee due to unforeseensituations or any other reasons, the provisional list of the voters shallbe prepared on the basis of the date fixed by SCEA. Since theGovernment had postponed the elections, the cut-off date waschanged, and it is not illegal.49.There appears substance in the arguments of learnedcounsel for respondent Mr. Kadam that the State Co-operativeElection Authority, under the exercise of Rule 6 of Rules, 2014, hadcorrectly extended the cut-off date as the Government has extendedthe Election of the Society. It is not in dispute that the members indefault were served individually with the notices calling upon them topay the difference amount of the increased share value, but theyfailed and became defaulters. The State Co-operative ElectionAuthority appears to have correctly exercised its powers under Rules 6and 9 of Rules 2014. The objection about not supplying the auditreport and balance sheet to the voters before sending the provisionallist of voters to respondent no.2 has no relevance. Hence, the answerto this point is that the provisional list was not defective in changingthe cut-off date.As to Point No.(vi) :50.Learned counsels for the petitioners have argued that thejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. wp-6-2024 grp.odt(43)15083 of 2023 has not dealt well with the issues involved in this writpetition. Hence, it would not come in the way of the petitioners. Thelearned counsel for the petitioners referred to said judgment,particularly para 44. In the said para, the Hon'ble Division Bench hasdiscussed the failure of thousands of members not paying theincreased value of the share for more than three years. The said paraalso discussed about the issue of notices to all those members. It hasalso been observed that payment of the increased value of shares wasa mandatory requirement. Whether individual persons received suchnotices is a matter of dispute and would require the recording of oraland documentary evidence. The same is the case with those personswho are the legal heirs of deceased shareholders. These two aspectshave not been raised before us by these two petitioners, as they werealready raised before the returning officer.51.Advocate Mr. Dighe argued that similar issues were raisedin Writ Petition No.15083 of 2023. The judgment of the Hon'bleDivision Bench in that writ petition directly affects the issues involvedin this case. Therefore, this Court need not re-examine the sameissues again. The other lawyers for respondents also argued on thesame line.52.Since the respondents have strongly relied on thejudgment of Writ Petition No.15083 of 2023 and argued that the saidjudgment has a bearing on these petitions, the learned counsel, Mr. wp-6-2024 grp.odt(44)Deshmukh, argued that the issues raised in these petitions were notinvolved in those petitions. He would submit that Rule 11 of the Rules2014 was not before the Hon'ble Division Bench. It was based onRules 9 and 10 of the M.C.S. (Election and Dispute) Rules. The issuesto be dealt with before this Court are different from those dealt within the said writ petition. He also argued that the Hon'ble DivisionBench did not dwell upon the aspects raised in this petition. Readingpara 49 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench, he argued thatthe Hon'ble Division Bench has kept open the rights of the aggrievedpersons to avail the remedy as permissible in law. Hence, this Courtmay independently test and examine the legality and validity of theimpugned order. He also argued that the Hon'ble Division Bench inpara 40 had crystallized the other things. The Hon'ble Division Benchhas discussed the facts of not paying the difference amounts of theshare value raised by the Society. However, no findings on its effectshave been recorded. Therefore, the judgment would not come in thepetitioner's way.53.The learned counsel, Mr. Gangakhedkar, relied on thecase of Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs(Preventive), (2015) 11 SCC 628 and argued that if the law requiresthat something be done in a particular manner, it must be done inthat manner, and if not done in that manner, it has no existence in theeye of law. On this ratio, he further argued that the objections raised wp-6-2024 grp.odt(45)could be considered independently in the present petitions. Theearlier judgment was on another issue. Therefore, it would not barthis Court from considering the disputes raised in these petitions. 54.Considering the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble DivisionBench in Writ Petition No.15083 of 2023, the Court is of the view thatthe points regarding the objection raised before respondent No.2 werenot considered on merit. However, this Court has considered theobjections and submissions of both the parties and recorded thefinding thereon except the appointment of the Administrator as it wasdealt with in the said petition. Thus, point No. (vi) is answeredaccordingly.55.The learned counsel, Mr. Deshmukh, argued that there isno absolute bar to exercise the writ jurisdiction by the High Court ininterfering with the election process of the co-operative societies. Tobolster his arguments, he relied on the judgment of Dattatray GenabaLole and others Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societiesand others, 2021 S.C.C. Online Bom 4579, particularly para 83 and84. He also relied on the case of Dhanraj Dattatray Patil and othersVs. State Co-operative Elections Authority, Nanded and others, 2023(5) Mh.L.J. 419, Pundlik Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005)7 SCC 181, Judgment of this Bench of Ankita Gaurav Mungad andothers Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ PetitionNo.511 of 2013, decided on 27.03.2023, a judgment of this Court wp-6-2024 grp.odt(46)(Nagpur Bench) in the case of Ankushbhau s/o Juglal Baghele andothers Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ PetitionNo.1686 of 2022 decided on 13.04.2022, Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V.and P. Sangh Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,A.I.R. 2004 SC 1329, and lastly, on the case of Union Territory ofLadakh and Ors Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference andAnr, A.I.R. Online 2023 SC 739. Further, he relied on the case of V.SKrishnan and Ors Vs. West-Fort Hi-tech Hospital Ltd and Ors, (2008)3 SCC 363.56.The learned counsel for the petitioners, along with othercase law, relying on the case of Dhanraj Dattatray Patil (supra),argued that a large number of members had been deprived of castingvotes only for non-paying the difference amount of increased sharevalue. There is patent illegality in the impugned orders. The Act ofdeleting such a large number of voters is apparently deliberate. Lastly,he referred to the judgment of Dattatray Genaba Lole (supra) andargued that the petition in nature before this Court is maintainable.57.The learned counsels for the respondents have repliedthat in the above case, the ratio was that for invoking the writjurisdiction, there should be patent illegality dealing with theobjections by applying a non-existent rule of provisions to the electionprocess or failing to adhere to a mandatory provision. In the case athand, the existing rules were applied, and respondent No.2 adhered wp-6-2024 grp.odt(47)to the mandatory provisions. Hence, the ratio in the case of DhanrajDattatray Patil (supra) is distinguishable on facts. The Court hasconsidered all the relevant provisions referred to by the respectivecounsels and finds that the objections raised before respondent no.2were not within his jurisdiction. The defaulters did not personallyraise the objection. One of the objectors was not a member of theSociety. Respondent No.2 has considered all these relevant aspectsand acted within the ambit of law, rules and By-laws of the Society.Therefore, the ratio in Dhanraj's case would not assist the petitioner.58.Learned counsel Mr. Dighe argued that the disputedquestions of facts have been involved in this case. Hence, theobjections could not be adjudicated while exercising Writ Jurisdiction.The remedy is under Section 91 of the M.C.S. Act. He also submittedthat the election program had been declared on 05.01.2024. Few ofthe nominations were received. Hence, this Court cannot exercise thejurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.He heavily relied on the case of Dattatray Genaba Lole (supra) andargued that such questions should be dealt with under Section 91 ofthe M.C.S. Act r/w Rule 78 of the Rules 2014. The impugned order iswell reasoned. The alternate remedy is an appeal/election dispute. Healso relied on the judgment of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) ofRavindra Vithal Kadus and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra andothers in Writ Petition No.3202 of 2021 decided on 01.03.2021, and wp-6-2024 grp.odt(48)Ramkrishna Sarjerao Jagtap and others Vs. The State of Maharashtraand others in Writ Petition No.4727 of 2022 decided on 27.04.2022 ofthe Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, and Sardar Dallu Tadvi Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.4679 of 2022decided on 28.04.2022 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (inwhich I was a member). He reiterated the arguments that in the writof petitioner Sanjay Raosaheb Waghchaure bearing no.6 of 2024, theHon'ble Division Bench has already considered the similar questionsthat were raised before it, held that those were the questions of factsand could not be dealt with under the writ jurisdiction. The findingsand the judgments of the Division Bench bind this Court. Hevehemently argued that there is no substance in the petitions. Hence,the petitions are liable to be dismissed.59.Advocate Mr. Nikam for respondent No. 3 relied on thecase of Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Limited and Ors Vs. ShrinivasPatil and Ors, 1992 (1) Mh.L.J. 883, and argued that the preparationof the voter list for the Election to the Managing Committee of aspecified society is an intermediate stage in the process of Election. Itwould not be proper for the High Court to interfere in a petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the case ofShri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingirid Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Udpadak Sanstha and Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors,(2001) 8 SCC 509 and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held wp-6-2024 grp.odt(49)that once a statute provides for the preparation of a voter list, it shallbe treated as part of the election process. It cannot be said that thepreparation of electoral rolls is not an intermediate stage in theprocess of Election of a specified Society. It is well settled that theHigh Court shall not stay the election process even though there maybe some illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoralrolls. Once the Election results are declared, the parties aggrievedhave the option to challenge the Election by means of an electionpetition before the Election Tribunal.60.The above cases were relied upon to canvass thejurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia about judicial review of the election process. Upon reading thesaid case law, the judicial pronouncement was that the High Courtcould interfere with the election process under certain circumstances.Referring to the judgment of Dattatray Genaba Lole (supra), theobservations recorded in para 83 were read, and in the otherjudgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that there is noabsolute bar in exercising a writ jurisdiction by this Court ininterfering with the election process of Co-operative Societies.However, the same has to be exercised only in case of patentillegalities coupled with other factors such as the Election stage andthe effect of the interference on the ongoing elections. He argued thatrespondent No.2 had not committed patent illegality by not wp-6-2024 grp.odt(50)considering the illegalities in preparing the provisional voters list. Themembers who were defaulters and dis-entitled to be added to thevoter list were correctly deleted. The election is at the advanced stage.Hence, the petitions have no force.61.The law is well settled, as discussed in the case law (citedsupra), that the High Court shall not stay the election process, thoughthere may be illegalities or breaches of rules while preparing electoralrolls. The election petition is the remedy for the petitioners. There isno substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for thepetitioners that if the objections are allowed, the election processwould not be disturbed. There appears to be no patent illegality inpreparing the voters list, the relevant rules and laws that were inexistence have been applied, and the mandatory provisions have beencorrectly adhered to by respondent No.2. The election is at anadvanced stage, and there would be an adverse effect on the electionprocess if the Court interferes with it. These are not the fit cases toexercise the powers under Writ jurisdiction. 62.For the reasons discussed above, the Court does not findany substantial ground to warrant interference with the impugnedorders of respondent No.2 rejecting the objections. Hence, all writpetitions stand dismissed.63.Rule is discharged.64.No order as to costs.
Decision
wp-6-2024 grp.odt(51)65.Civil Application No.455 of 2024 for intervention andCivil Application No.454 of 2024 stand disposed of. (S.G. MEHARE, J.) Mujaheed//