High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
Ethape( 1 ) WP-1301-2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 1301 OF 2025 1. Gitanjali Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.2. Jivan Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.3. Jay Bajrang Majur Sahkari Society Ltd.4. Shivshahi Majur Sahkari Society Ltd.5. Girad Majur Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit.6. Mahatma Phule Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.7. Navjivan Majur Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit.8. Pramangal Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.9. Sant Gajanan Majur Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit.10. Prabhat Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.11. Ajay Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.12. Gopibai Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.13. Gurudatta Gavandi Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.14. Girna Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.15. Saptshrungi Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.16. Vaishali Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.17. Panchshil Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.18. Nandkumar Majur Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit. 19. Shramjivi Majuranchi Sahakari Society Ltd. Ethape( 2 ) WP-1301-202520. Jamner Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.21. Shivmurti Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.22. Rojgar Hami Majur Sahakari Society Ltd.23. Utkarsh Sahakari Majur Sanstha Maryadit.24. Gajanan Majur Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit.25. Kalyan Majur Sahakari Sansha Rajwad.26. Samarth Rangkam Bandhakam MajurSahakari Society Dholi....PetitionersVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra Through its District Deputy Registrar,Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon.2. The State Co-operative Election Authority, Jalgaon, Tal Dist. Jalgaon. 3. Taluka Co-operative Election Officer/Authority,So also Deputy Registrar Co-operativeSocieties, Jalgaon, Tal. Dist. Jalgaon.4. Jalgaon Zilha Krushi AudhogikSarv Seva Sahakari Sanstha, Maryadit,Office at Visanji Nagar, Near Home Guard Office,Jalgaon, Tal. Dist. Jalgaon.5. Dnyaneshwar Bhadu MahajanAge: 62, Occu: Nil,R/o. Motha Madiwada,
Legal Reasoning
Ethape( 3 ) WP-1301-2025Near Ramayanmadi, Dharangaon,Tal. Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon....Respondents …..Mr.Vijay B. Patil Advocate for the petitioners.Mr.P. P. Dawalkar, AGP for Respondent No.1.Mr. V. H. Dighe Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.Mr. V. D. Salunke Advocate h/f Mr. Mayur V. Salunke Advocate forRespondent No.5. …..CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:31st JANUARY 2025JUDGMENT :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of theparties. 2.The question post in the writ petition is the question whichoftenly arises before the Returning Officers conducting the electionto the Co-operative Societies. A challenge is to an order dated 20thJanuary 2025 passed by the Taluka Co-operative ElectionOfficer/Authority and Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society,Jalgaon. By way of impugned order, names of the petitioners aredirected to be deleted from the list of voters by holding that the Ethape( 4 ) WP-1301-2025petitioners are not eligible and qualified to be members of thesociety and thus not entitled to take part in the election process. 3.The question thus, is posed as to whether the ReturningOfficer can adjudicate upon the question of eligibility andentitlement of a member and to delete their names from the voterlist. The petitioners are the persons, who are members ofRespondent No. 4 /Federal Society. 4.The respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra. RespondentNo.2 is the State Co-operative Election Authority, Jalgaon.Respondent No.3 is the Taluka Co-operative ElectionOfficer/Authority. Respondent No.4 is the Federation. TheRespondent No.5 is the person at whose instance the order ispassed by Respondent No.3.5.The facts, in short, that all these 26 societies are MajurSahakari Societies i.e. Labour Co-operative Society. They are themembers of the Respondent No.4 Society. Since establishment, they Ethape( 5 ) WP-1301-2025are taking part in every election held to the Managing Committee ofRespondent No.4 Society. Now again the elections are to be held.The list of voters was published on 7th October 2024. All thepetitioner societies are shown in voters list as voters in the listpublished by Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.5 raised anobjection to the names of the petitioners and prayed for deletion oftheir names from the list. The objection is that these societies beinglabour societies and not multi-purpose co-operative societies, arenot entitled to be the member of Federation. The respondent No.3on receipt of the objection, issued notice only to Respondent No.4Federation calling for explanation. The respondent No.4 submittedan explanation. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 being aElection Officer, has no authority to decide the question of validityof membership of the petitioners-societies. There is nothing in thebye-laws of the federation providing that labour societies cannotbecome members of the federation. The membership is open to allkind of societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Ethape( 6 ) WP-1301-20256.After considering the explanation and hearing the parties, it isheld that in view of bye-laws of the society, only the societies whichare mentioned in the bye-laws can become member of Federation.In the bye-laws, there is no mention of the word "Labour Societies"and therefore they cannot be held to be eligible to become membersand ultimately cannot be taken as valid voter’s. The objection thuscame to be sustained by respondent No.4. The order came to bepassed deleting names of these petitioner societies from the list ofvalid voters. The petitioners are thus before this Court. 7.The main submissions of the petitioners are that; (1) there isnothing in the act or the bye-laws to exclude the labour societiesfrom becoming members of Respondent No.4 Federation; (2) Thejurisdiction to decide the question about validity of membership isnot with the election officer; (3) In this case, no notice is issued toany individual society. The notice is issued only to the federation.The order is thus in violation of principals of natural justice and the Ethape( 7 ) WP-1301-2025order is therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8.The learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Patil vehementlyargued that the Rule 6 of Maharashtra Specified Co-operativeSocieties (Elections to Committees) Rules, 2014 (hereinafterreferred to as "2014 Rules") does not give power to ReturningOfficer to decide the question of validity of the membership.9.That objections to be called within 10 days after publication ofthe list of voters. In the present case, list of voters was published on7th October 2024. The objection was filed on 13th January 2025.Thus beyond 10 days period and in that view, the objection couldnot have been entertained. Rule 11 of the 2014 Rules only permitsthe changes in the name, address etc. and nothing more. The powerunder Rule 11 cannot be used to delete the name of the voters. Herelied upon Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative SocietiesAct and submitted that no membership can be refused to anyoneby the society. Ethape( 8 ) WP-1301-202510.He further submits that the petitioners society are dulyinducted as members. Bye-law 8 of the bye-laws of RespondentNo.4 deals with the membership of the Societies it provides thatmembership and categories of the members. Rule 8 provides thatthe societies registered under Co-operative Societies Act in DistrictJalgaon as marketing, processing, horticulture, Milk, Fruit,Vegetable Societies, Consumer Societies and Multi-purposeSocieties, who apply for membership can become member byapproval of the Management Committee. All the petitionerssocieties have become members on their application approved bythe Managing Committee. This rule cannot be read to exclude thelabour societies merely because the wording as labour societiesdoes not appear in the bey-laws 8 (A). He submits that theobjection was raised only to the eligibility of voters and not to bemembership. Mr.Patil further submits that bye-laws came into forcein 2014 whereas the petitioners have become members in 1996,since then they have participated in the election. Ethape( 9 ) WP-1301-202511.So far as the jurisdiction and power of Returning Officer isconcerned, he relied upon the following judgments: (i) Dhondiba Parshuram Kakade Vs. SomeshwarSahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.1(ii) Usha Bhaginath Bhagat and Ors. Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.2 (iii) Ankita Gaurav Mungad and Ors. Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.3 (iv) Ashok Baburao Tathe and Ors. Vs. The State Co-operative election Through Secretary and Ors. decidedby this Court in Writ Petition No.2889 of 2022 on 8thMarch 2022.12.Mr. Salunke, the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.5vehemently opposes the petition. He fairly submits that this issuecrops up every now and then and it is necessary to settle the issueonce for all. He submits that in the present case, the objection wasvery specific that the petitioner societies happen to be labour11979 BCI 432[2021 DGLS (Bom.) 2009]3[2023 DGLS (Bom.) 2055] Ethape( 10 ) WP-1301-2025societies. The cadre of labour societies is different than the otherco-operative societies. There is separate federation of the laboursocieties at district level and also at State level. The petitionerssocieties cannot become members of federation of other societies.There is inherent lack of right and qualification in them to becomemembers of respondent-federation. The petitioners therefore cannotbe the members of the Federation when the petitioners are noteligible to be members. There is no question of the petitionersgetting right to vote. In the present case, he submits that, theReturning Officer has dealt only with the aspect of the right to voteof the petitioners. There is nothing in the order to show that theirmembership itself is cancelled. The authority has thus exercised thepower within the jurisdiction. Publishing of the names of thesociety in the voters list is not final. The said list was subject toobjection. Rules 7 and 8 provides for calling of objections. Rule 9and 11(3) provides further course of action. A notice given toRespondent No.4 is sufficient compliance of rules of natural justice Ethape( 11 ) WP-1301-2025as Respondent No.4 represented cause of the petitioners. Hesubmits that Rule 11(3) does not even require a notice. In the order,the election officer has not cancelled the membership but has takenaway the right to vote. The respondent No.3 has properlyconsidered the case of the petitioners showing application of mind.He submits that Rule 19 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 isthe basic Rule. He submits that, the bye-laws is integral part ofrules having binding force under the Act. The authority has rightlyconcluded that it is only such societies which are mentioned in Bye-laws 8(A) are the societies eligible to become members of thefederation. So far as not giving notices to the petitioners isconcerned, he submits that at the most, in such cases, the mater canbe remanded back for decision afresh by giving an opportunity tothe petitioners. He relied upon the judgments as below:(i) Chief Commissioner of Ajmer Vs. Radhey ShyamDani4. (ii) Dilip Motiram Andhare and Ors. Vs. State of4[1956 DGLS (SC) 94] Ethape( 12 ) WP-1301-2025Maharashtra and Ors.5 (iii) Sambha Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.613.In support of his submission that the membership of thesociety is different than the right of vote in the election. He thussubmits that no any illegality is pointed out calling for interferenceat the hands of this Court exercising extra-ordinary powers underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India. He prays for dismissal ofthe writ petition. 14.Mr.Dighe, the learned Advocate appearing for the RespondentNo.2 and 3 (Election Authorities) and opposes the petition. Hesubmits that the objection was only as regards voters right. Sincethe objection goes to the root of the matter, the authority has rightlyconsidered the same. The petitioner societies are the laboursocieties and those could not have become members of thefederation. The petitioner societies may not have been named5[2021 DGLS (Bom.)1850]6[1996 CTJ 226] Ethape( 13 ) WP-1301-2025specifically as labour societies. However, looking to the aim andobject of the petitioner societies, it is seen that those societies arenecessarily labour societies. He also relied on Rule 11(3) of theRules of 2014. He submits that it is open for the election officer tohold such inquiry which is necessary to decide right of vote. Themembership in the present case is kept intact. It is only held thatthey are not eligible to become members and to vote in the election.He submitted that in the present case remand is not necessary, sincethe Respondent No.3 has considered all the aspects involved in thematter and has considered the interest of the petitioners societies.List is finalized on 20th January 2025. Further calender of theelection is to follow and the election program is required to bepublished on or before 10th February 2025 by relying on Rule 18 ofthe Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee)Rules, 2014. 15.In the case of Dhondiba Kakade (supra), the question wasabout right to vote. It was contended that the Collector had no Ethape( 14 ) WP-1301-2025jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of membership whileexercising the powers conferred on him by Rule 6 and thereby toalter or amend the Register of members. It was stand of theReturning Officer in the said case that the adjudication of the claimsto be enrolled in the voters list and objection to the enrollment waswithin the ambit and scope of Rule 6 and thus within a powers andjurisdiction of the Collector. The Division Bench of this Court heldthat there is nothing in this Rule empowering the Collector to holdthe detailed inquiry as it was done in the said case. The Collectorhas dealt with question as to whether, the person is qualified to beon the register of the members and not to delete his name from theprovisional Rule under Section 38(2) of the Societies Act. It is heldthat the inquiry under Rule 6(1) contemplates a very summaryinquiry and confined only to the aspects set out in the said rule.Thus it is specifically held that there is nothing to authorizeCollector to hold detailed inquiry. It is also considered that againstsuch order, there is no appeal provided.
Decision
Ethape( 15 ) WP-1301-202516.In the case of Usha Bhaginath Bhagat (supra), in the saidjudgment, in the case of Dhondiba Kakade (supra) is considered, inthat case it was held that names of the petitioners were deletedfrom the voters list for no substantial reason. The writ petition wasallowed by setting aside the order by deleting the name of thevoters. 17.In the case of Ankita Mungad (supra), this Court again heldthat large number of voters were sought to be deleted by theimpugned order. Election Officer had travelled far beyond scope ofRule 7 and in view of the same, the order of deletion of voters wasset aside. 18.In the case of Ashok Tathe (supra), this Court also set asidethe order deleting the names of the petitioners therein and othermembers from the final voters list. It was directed that those namesbe included in the voters list. Ethape( 16 ) WP-1301-202519.Coming to the Judgments relied upon by the learned Advocatefor the Respondents those are considered below. In the case ofChief Commissioner of Ajmer (supra), it was in respect of AjmerMerwara Municipalities Regulation Act, 1925 and Ajmer Statemunicipalities Election Rules, 1955. In the said case it was heldthat, while deciding the question of maintaining electoral rolls,opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinizewhether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisitequalifications. There is needs to be adjudication of claims to beenrolled on objections to such enrollment. This Court does not findthat this judgment is applicable in the present case. 20.So far as judgment in the case of Dilip Andhare (supra) isconcerned, necessarily what was considered was rule. In that case,the Court has considered the case of individual voters and not likethe societies. It was held that, in view of Section 38 of the Act, it ispermissible for the election officer to examine the provisional list Ethape( 17 ) WP-1301-2025and to ensure that the persons who are not eligible to becomemembers as per bye-laws of the societies are deleted from theprovisional voters list. It was held that otherwise, even if the personis not eligible to become members as per bye-laws, would beentitled to vote and consequently also to contest the election. Thusit is against basic requirements of become members. 21.This Court finds that it was the case of individualmembership. In the case of Sambha (supra), this Court has heldthat the bye-laws are integral parts of rule for administration of Co-operative Societies. The only requirement is that they should notrepugnant to the Act or rules get under the Act. There is no disputeabout the said proposition. 22.So far the Judgment in the case of Dilip Motiram Andhare isconcerned, he submits that the petitioners therein were individualmembers of the society. In that case, rule provides for automatic dis-qualification and in that view the judgment was delivered. On this, Ethape( 18 ) WP-1301-2025the learned Advocate Mr.Salunke submits that Rules are onlymodified in 2014 and therefore those are called as Rule 2014.23. This Court has to thus consider the writ petition in view ofsubmissions and judgments. The first is whether in the objectionraised by Respondent No.5, Respondent No.3 could have consideredthe right of the petitioners to the membership of the society. Rule11 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 2014 dealt with the claims andobjection to the provisional list of voters and the final list of votersfor the societies having society or societies and individuals asmembers. Sub-rule 3 provides that the District Co-operativeElection Officer or Taluka or Ward Co-operative Officer shall makesuch inquiries as necessary and consider each claim or objectionand to give decision to the persons concerned within 10 days fromthe last date dispatched for receiving the claims and objections andfinal voters list. List be published within a period of 15 days fromthe last date prescribed for receiving claims. In the present case, theprovisional list was published before 7th October 2024. The Ethape( 19 ) WP-1301-2025objection is raised on 30th January 2025. The objections thus,having raised after 10 days could not have been considered by theRespondent No.3.24.This Court finds force in the submission of learned Advocatefor the petitioner that no objection could have been entertainedafter 10 days of publishing of the provisional voters list.25.So far as power of the election officer under Rule 11 isconcerned, there is nothing to show that the Election Officer isauthorized to consider the eligibility of members to becomemember of the society. From looking to the order passed by theRespondent No.3, it is seen that the learned Officer has dealt withvery membership and has discussed the eligibility of the petitioners.This Court finds certainly it was beyond the jurisdiction of theRespondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 is only required to consideras to whether the member is otherwise not eligible to vote on thegrounds like non payment of fees etc. He certainly could not have Ethape( 20 ) WP-1301-2025gone into the aspect of eligibility. When the valuable right of votingis taken away by deleting the names, it was necessary forrespondent No.3 to give individual notices to each of thepetitioners.26.Considering all these judgments and submissions, this Courtcertainly finds though the questions are raised, this Court finds thatsince objection was recorded beyond 10 days and that wasentertained, it was certainly beyond the power to considered saidobjections. The other aspects involved is that the petitioners are themembers since 1996 of Respondent No.4. The respondent No.5 isalso members since long. There was no objection raised any time byrespondent No.5. The petitioners have participated in the earlierelections when Respondent No.5 was also member. The objection israised for the first time that too much after the period for raisingobjection i.e. it has already come that the provisional voters list waspublished on 7th October 2024. Objections were required to be filedwithin 10 days. However, the same is raised on 13th January 2025, Ethape( 21 ) WP-1301-2025certainly that is beyond 10 days. Secondly, further this Court findsthat no individual notices were given to the individual society. Onthis grounds certainly, the impugned order deserves to be quashedand set aside. The other questions are not considered as those canbe considered in proper case. In this case since this Court has heldthe the order is illegal on the other point, this Court need not touchthe larger issue in the present case. Considering all above, followingorder: ORDER(i) Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). (ii)The impugned order dated 20th January 2025 passed byTaluka Co-operative Election Officer and Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies Jalgaon, is quashed and set aside. (iii) No order as to costs.(iv)Rule is made absolute in above terms.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]