High Court
Facts
1 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.1239 OF 2024Sanjay S/o Yadavrao Waghchaure,Age 56 years, occu. Agri.,R/o Dhupkheda, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.... Petitioner.VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Co-operation Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Joint Registrar Cooperative Societiesand Regional Joint Director (Sugar),Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar.3. The State Co-operative Election Authority,Maharashtra State, Pune,Central Administrative Building,Shivajinagar, Pune,Through its Secretary.4.The District Cooperative Election Officer andThe Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies andRegional Joint Director of Sugar,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Near Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar.5.The Retuning Officer,Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Eknath Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.6. Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Eknath Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.Through its Administrator/ Managing Director.7. Dattatray s/o Haribhau Amle,Age 50 years, occu. Agri.
Legal Reasoning
14 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtdefinitely not affect the qualifying clause to contest themembers as prescribed in bylaws 28(2) of the Society. Apartfrom that, he referred to the said bylaws and pointed out thatthere is a footnote at the bottom of that bylaw that Rule 28applies only to the candidates from the sugarcane producersmembers' constituency. All these candidates were contestingfrom the same constituency. Hence, Rule 28(2) is squarelyapplicable. None of them produced satisfactory evidence beforethe Returning Officer that they had supplied the sugarcanepreceding three years out of the five from the date of thedeclaration of the election. He has vehemently argued that01.10.2023 was the cutoff date. Three preceding years havebeen considered from the cutoff date. The documents onrecord show that the petitioners supplied the sugarcane afterthe cutoff date. Therefore, they could not take advantage of thefact that it was their last supply of sugarcane, and theyacquired the qualification to contest the election. The crushingseason was over in March 2023, and they supplied thesugarcane after the season for 2023-2024. The material datefor eligibility was 11.01.2024. He also argued that since therewas prima facie evidence before the Returning Officer that thepetitioners had not complied with bylaws 28(2) of the Society,their nominations were correctly dismissed. He relied on the 15 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtcase of Shivshankar Dudh Vyavsayek Va Utpadak SansthaMaryadit and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others;2004(1) Mh.L.J. 779 and vehemently argued that in this case,this Court held that the bylaws approved by the statutory bodyhad a binding force. The statutory body has sanctioned thebylaws of the society respondent No.6. Hence, it has a bindingforce. Apart from that, the amendments in Sections 26 and 27did not mention any consequences on the bylaws of theSociety. He was relying on the case of Manchak Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others; 2011 (2) ALL MR 561. He vehementlyargued that the Rule of material dates plays a vital role inconsidering the qualification for contesting the election. In saidcase, respondent No.4 committed the defaults on 28.05.2010,i.e., the date on which the crop loan ought to have been paid.Even on the last date of the nomination, the loan was notrepaid. He has cleared the loan while scrutiny was undertaken.In these sets of facts, it has been held that on the relevant datei.e. till the last date prescribed for filing nomination papers, therespondents did not clear the dues, and therefore, they weredisqualified. Payment after the last date does not wipe out non-eligibility. He would again reiterate that the material date was11.10.2024, i.e., the last date for nomination. Until that date, 16 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtthere was no evidence that the petitioners had supplied thesugarcane as required under bylaws 28(2) of the Society. 11.He further relied on the case of Sambha Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others ; 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 182 and arguedthat though the statute provides for the qualification anddisqualification to become the member as eligible to contestthe election the additional qualifications could be added inbylaws of the Society. In paragraph No.5, it has been observedthat considering the argument of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that, "Therefore, disqualifications as laid down in theAct and rules cannot be watered down by the Society byframing bylaws contrary to it. But, it does not mean that theadditional qualifications cannot be prescribed under thebylaws. In many cases, qualification in respect of residence isprescribed. In many cases, the number of shares that should beheld by a member for being entitled to election as Director isalso prescribed. It cannot be said that no additionalqualifications can be prescribed under the bylaws. It would bewithin the jurisdiction of the Registrar to examine whetherbylaws included are proper and reasonable. Since the Registrarapproved the present bylaws it can well be presumed that theRegistrar has accepted its necessity." 17 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odt12.It would be proper to deal firstly with the effect of theamendment of Sections 26 and 27 in MCS Act. Learnedcounsel for the petitioners has correctly pointed out that clauseB of Sub Section 2 of old Section 26 has been deleted.However, the bylaws remained unchanged and provided somequalifications to contest the election. The condition was thatthe person wishing to nominate and contest the election mustsupply the sugarcane to the Society if he is from the sugarcaneproducers' members constituency for three preceding seasonsout of five. The wording of the said bylaw 28(2) reads that asper sub-clause 9, the person who wishes to qualify to contestthe election has to supply the crop produced in the area ofoperation of the factory preceding three years out of fiveseasons. The words 'before the election' indicate that thepreceding five years should be counted from the proposedelection. The election of the Society has been proposed for theyear 2023-2024 to 2028-2029. There is not much quarrelabout the season of sugarcane crushing. Unless there areexceptional circumstances, the crushing season is betweenOctober-November and March-April. However, reading thissub-clause (2) of bylaws 28, the candidates should supply thesugarcane for crushing for at least three seasons out of five 18 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtbefore the election. The election program was published on04.01.2024. However, the election was declared to be held on11.02.2024. This may be the correct date to count the lastfive years. So the person who wishes to contest the election hasto satisfy that at least three years before 11.02.2024, he hassupplied sugarcane to the Society. In all petitions, except writpetition No.1243 of 2024, the documents placed on recordindicate no supply for the last three years. However, theexplanation of the petitioners is that they had been torespondent No.6, but they refused to collect the sugarcane.This seems to be a dispute between the Society and themembers, and it is a disputed fact. The remedy was availableto the petitioners to obtain certain orders from the competentAuthorities about the non-accepting of the sugarcane for theseason. Considering the scope and powers of the ReturningOfficer, the Court is of the view that it was beyond his powersto consider the disputed fact of refusing to collect sugarcane. Itrequires a detailed inquiry. The returning Officer did notcommit any mistake in not accepting their submissions. 13.Another limb of the argument of the learned counsel forthe petitioners is that if any family member supplies thesugarcane for crushing preceding five years to the election or 19 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtat least for three season, any of his family members becomeentitled to contest the election. This seems to be the argumentfor the first time before this Court. The contesting respondentshave argued that in bylaws 28(2), the word "rks" (means 'he')has been used. Therefore, it cannot be said that "he" includesfamily members who are members of the Society. That apart,there was no evidence on record to show that their familieshad supplied the sugarcane for crushing for three yearspreceding the election. In the case of Yashwant (supra), reliedon by the petitioners, the Court held that the other part of thebylaws would have to be read with substantive provisions ofthe Act, including Section 79B. A member is not expected tocomply with the procedure, which is impossible to comply.Therefore, it will not cover a case where the member wasunable to supply agricultural produce for a reason beyond hiscontrol or for good reason or justification. If for a good reason,which is not voluntary, he was not able to cultivate sugarcane,then, such a case is not covered by the said bylaws. In the caseat hand, none of the petitioners has a case that the non-supplyof sugarcane for three seasons preceding the election wasbeyond their control and for good reasons or justifications. Onthe contrary, they are blaming respondent No.6 that they hadbeen to the Society i.e. the sugarcane factory, but they refused 20 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtto accept the sugarcane. That was the right time for thepetitioners to resist the denial. Unfortunately, it was not thecase of the petitioners as such. Therefore, the ratio laid downin the case of Yashwant (supra) would not come to their aid.14.The ratios laid down in the case of Shivshankar (supra)and Sambha (supra) are squarely applicable to the case athand. Therefore, it could not be said that the qualificationprescribed under the bylaws 28(2) of the Society has beenredundant in view of the amendment in Sections 26 and 27 ofthe MCS Act, 1960.15.In Writ Petition No.1243/2024, the learned counsel forthe petitioners referred to the certificate of the Society showingthat he has supplied the sugarcane for 2021, 2022, 2023 andalso supplied one receipt dated 26.11.2023 for the crushingseason 2023-2024. He submits that before the cutoff date, hehas supplied the sugarcane for crushing. Therefore, consideringthe material date i.e. 11.01.2024, he has supplied thesugarcane for crushing, and that satisfied the condition ofbylaws 28(2). Hence, their nominations should not have beenrefused. 21 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odt16.Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has vehementlyopposed the argument and stated that the crushing season for2023-2024 was over in April 2023. As per the conditionrequired under bylaws 28(2), the last season was 2022-2023only, which ended in April 2023. Any supply thereafter wouldbe considered for the next season. He seems to have correctlyinterpreted that the crushing season of the year for theelection would be counted for the preceding five years of theelection. This election is for 2023-2024 to 2028-2029. Thoughthe petitioners supplied the sugarcane on 26.11.2023 i.e.before the material date 11.01.2024, it could not be held thatit was the supply for the preceding five years of the elections.The season for 2022-2023 was ended in April. Considering thisclause, the petitioners would have to supply the sugarcane forcrushing for 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.Admittedly, they did not supply the sugarcane for 2020-2021.Therefore, this receipt dated 26.11.2023 would not assist thepetitioners in holding them qualified to contest the election.The rest of the arguments were similar as advanced anddiscussed above. 17.Perused the impugned orders. Upon giving a consciousthought over the arguments, rules, and provisions of the law,
Arguments
2 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtR/o Panrajangaon Khd. Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.8.Digamber Satwaji Gorde,Age 50 years, occu. Agri.R/o Balnagar, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.9.Yehwant s/o Tukaram Bhavar – deleted.10.Deepak s/o Harischandra Fandade,Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,R/o Kesapuri, Tq. Paithan,District : Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.… Respondents.WITHWRIT PETITION NO.1240 OF 2024Janardhan s/o Shripatrav Kagade,Age 74 years, occu. Agri.,R/o At Post Lakhegaon, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.... Petitioner.VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Co-operation Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Joint Registrar Cooperative Societiesand Regional Joint Director (Sugar),Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar.3. The State Co-operative Election Authority,Maharashtra State, Pune,Central Administrative Building,Shivajinagar, Pune,Through its Secretary.4.The District Cooperative Election Officer andThe Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies andRegional Joint Director of Sugar,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, 3 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtNear Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar.5.The Retuning Officer,Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Eknath Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.6. Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Eknath Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.Through its Administrator/ Managing Director.7. Dattatray s/o Haribhau Amle,Age 50 years, occu. Agri.R/o Panrajangaon Khd. Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.8.Digamber Satwaji Gorde,Age 50 years, occu. Agri.R/o Balnagar, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.9.Yehwant s/o Tukaram Bhavar – deleted.10.Deepak s/o Harischandra Fandade,Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,R/o Kesapuri, Tq. Paithan,District : Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.… Respondents.WITHWRIT PETITION NO.1241 OF 2024Devidas s/o Janardhan Niware,Age 72 years, occu. Agri.,R/o Nathnagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.... Petitioner.VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Co-operation Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 4 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odt2.The Joint Registrar Cooperative Societiesand Regional Joint Director (Sugar),Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar.3. The State Cooperative Election Authority,Maharashtra State, Pune,Central Administrative Building,Shivajinagar, Pune,Through its Secretary.4.The District Co-operative Election Officer andThe Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies andRegional Joint Director of Sugar,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Near Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar.5.The Retuning Officer,Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Eknath Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.6. Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Eknath Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.Through its Administrator/ Managing Director.7. Mahesh s/o Baburao Bombale – Deleted.8.Deepak s/o Devichand More – deleted.9.Sachin s/o Vikramrao Ghayal,Age 37 years, Occu. Business,R/o Pannalal Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,District : Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.10.Aabasaheb s/o Sheshrao More,Age: 55 years, Occu: Agril.,R/o. Katpur, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.11. Eknath s/o Baban Nawale,Age: 45 years, Occu: Agril.,R/o. Wahegaon, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. 5 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odt12. Bhaskar s/o Sheshrao More – deleted.13. Arefkhan Yusufkhan Pathan – deleted.14. Haribhau s/o Bapurao Mapari – deleted.15. Vishnu s/o Asaram Bodakhe,Age: 56 years, Occu: Agril.,R/o. Jaisingnagar, MIDC, Paithan,Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.16.Bhagyashree Ravindra Ghayal– deleted. .… Respondents.WITHWRIT PETITION NO.1242 OF 2024Rajendra s/o Babasaheb Gabhud,Age 74 years, occu. Agri.,R/o At Post Lakhegaon, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.... Petitioner.VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Co-operation Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Joint Registrar Co-operative Societiesand Regional Joint Director (Sugar),Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar.3. The State Co-operative Election Authority,Maharashtra State, Pune,Central Administrative Building,Shivajinagar, Pune,Through its Secretary.4.The District Co-operative Election Officer andThe Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies andRegional Joint Director of Sugar,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Near Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar. 6 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odt5.The Returning Officer,Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Eknath Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.6. Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Eknath Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.Through its Administrator/ Managing Director.7.Gulab Rustumrao Landge,Age 65 years, Occul Agri.,R/o Unchegaon, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.8.Pralhad s/o Kalyanrao Aute,Age 56 years, occu. Agri.r/o Mauli Apegaon, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.9.Asaram s/o Baburao Shinde – Deleted.10.Kakasaheb Manikrao Gore – Deleted.11.Ravindra Abasaheb Bodkhe – Deleted.12. Bhausaheb Vithal Pise,Age 50 years, occu. Agri.,R/o Uchegaon, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.13. Datta Shrikisan Wakade,Age 40 years, occu. Agri.,R/o Takli Ambad, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.14. Sunil s/o Dagadu Chitale – Deleted.15. Anilkumar Murlidhar Tupkari – Deleted.16. Santosh s/o Ramrao Wakade – Deleted.… Respondents.WITHWRIT PETITION NO.1243 OF 2024 7 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtShahadeo s/o Gangaram Narwade,Age 76 years, occu. Agri.,R/o Tanda Bu. Tanda Kh.,At Post Balanagar, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.... Petitioner.VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Co-operation Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Joint Registrar Co-operative Societiesand Regional Joint Director (Sugar),Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar.3. The State Co-operative Election Authority,Maharashtra State, Pune,Central Administrative Building,Shivajinagar, Pune,Through its Secretary.4.The District Co-operative Election Officer andThe Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies andRegional Joint Director of Sugar,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Near Kranti Chowk, Chh. Sambhajinagar.5.The Returning Officer,Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Eknath Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.6. Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Eknath Nagar, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.Through its Administrator/ Managing Director.7. Dattatray s/o Haribhau Amle,Age 50 years, occu. Agri.R/o Panrajangaon Khd. Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 8 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odt8.Digamber Satwaji Gorde,Age 50 years, occu. Agri.R/o Balnagar, Tq. Paithan,District: Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.9.Yehwant s/o Tukaram Bhavar – deleted.10.Deepak s/o Harischandra Fandade,Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,R/o Kesapuri, Tq. Paithan,District : Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.… Respondents....Advocates for the Petitioners in all WP : Mr. Ghatol-Patil S. B.with Mr. Rahul C. Babar, Mr. D. S. Daspute, D. B. Dansode.AGPs for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde, Mrs. M. L.Sangit, Mrs. R. R. Tandale, respectively.Adv. for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in all WP : Mr. S. K. Kadam.Advocate for Respondent No.6 in all WP : Mr. D. J. Choudhari.Adv. for respondent No.7 in WP/1241/24 : Mr. B. B. Bhise....CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.DATE :07.02.2024ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finallyby consent of the parties.2.The petitioners had filed a nomination for the election ofShri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., TalukaPaithan, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar from SugarcaneProducers Members Constituency. Since they did not complywith bylaw 28(2) provisions of the Sugar Factory/respondentNo.6, their nomination forms were rejected. They have a 9 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtcommon grievance against the order of their rejection. Hence,they are taken up for hearing and disposal together. 3. Bylaw No.28(2), under which the nominations havebeen rejected, is reproduced for ready reference, it reads thus ;“२८) …… (१) …..(२) त्यानेपोटनिनयम९मधीलतरतुदीप्रमाणेकारखान्याचेकाय(cid:28)क्षेत्रातील त्यानेनिपकनि(cid:31)लेलाउसभागाच्याप्रमाणातनिन(cid:31)डणूकीपु(cid:31)(च्यालगतच्यापाच गाळपहंगामापैकीतीनगाळपहंगामामध्येकारखान्यासघालण्याचेबंधन पाळलेलेअसलेपानिहजे.”"(2) He should have complied with the obligation ofsupplying the sugar cane to the factory for three out of fivecrushing seasons preceding the election in proportion tothe area in which he produced the sugar cane in theoperational area of the factory as per sub-rule 9." 4.The Returning Officer rejected their nominations,observing that they did not supply the sugarcane for threeseasons preceding the election of the society/respondent No.6.5.Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehementlyargued that this Rule was enacted pursuant to Section 26 ofthe Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (For short'MCS Act'). However, Section 26 has been amended and theearlier clause, which was that it should be the duty of every 10 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtmember of the Society to utilize the minimum level of servicesat least once in 5 consecutive years as specified in the bylawsof the Society. That clause, which was co-related with thecondition to supply sugarcane at least three seasons out of fiveseasons preceding the election, becomes redundant. Thereforetheir nominations should not have been rejected. Based onfacts, he argued that the petitioner had been to the sugarfactory to supply the sugarcane, but the sugar factory did notcollect their sugarcane. Therefore, it could not be held thatthey voluntarily failed to supply the sugarcane. He hassupplied the sugarcane for 2023-2024, considering that theyhave fulfilled the condition of bylaws 28(2). Since there is nowilful default on their part, they could not be deprived ofcontesting the election of respondent No.6. However, as far asthe case of Shahadeo Narwade (Writ Petition No.1243 of 2024)is concerned, he has supplied sugarcane for three seasonspreceding the elections. He further argued that the electionprogram was declared on 04.01.2024. Therefore, the precedingthree seasons should be counted from that date. He alsoargued that the family members of the petitioners had suppliedthe sugarcane for the last three seasons. Therefore, also theycould not be disqualified. He would submit that the crushingseason runs normally between October-November to March- 11 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtApril. However, this season period may differ, and it is alwayssubject to the orders of the Sugar Commissioner. There was noevidence of last year's crushing season, as per the directions ofthe Sugar Commissioner. He has referred to the variousdocuments placed on record and vehemently argued that theReturning Officer did not apply his mind and mechanicallypassed the order. The Appellate Authority also, withoutapplication of his mind, dismissed their appeal. Supplying thesugarcane in a season would not be under the control of theagriculturists or the members. It depends on the nature. Ifthere are such natural impediments, the bylaws should be readin that context, and the members could not be held ineligibleto contest the election.6.To bolster his argument, he relied on the case ofYeshwant Khashaba Dubai Vs. Krishna Sahakari SakharKarkhana Ltd. ; Laws (Bom.)-1989-2-13. He further relied onthe case of Suresh Anandrao Choudhari Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others ; (2012) 3 Mh.L.J. 945. He arguedthat since Section 26 of the MCS Act was amended, theprovisions for disqualifying the members from contesting themembers provided therein have also been deleted . Hence, it is 12 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtpresumed that bylaw No.28(2) has no force of law. None of theparties can take advantage of this situation.7.In response to the objections of learned counsel for therespondents, in Writ Petition Nos.1239 of 2024, 1240 of 2024and 1243 of 2024 has argued that the results have beendeclared unopposed as per Rule 32 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Election Rules, 2014 (for short 'Rules2014'). Therefore, these petitions became infructuous; it hasbeen argued for the petitioners that the petitioners have theright to contest and continue their petitions. Before the date ofwithdrawal of the nominations their petition was subjudicedbefore this Court. They may be listed in the list of contestingcandidates for election. An Election Petition is not a remedyagainst the rejection of nominations. On the contrary, the onlyremedy for them is the writ petition.8.To bolster his arguments, he relied on the case ofDalsing Shamsing Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ;2006 (3) Mh.L.J. 592. He prayed to allow the writ petitions.9.Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Kadam for ReturningOfficer/respondent No.5 has vehemently argued that once theelection is declared, the petitions against the rejection of 13 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtnomination become redundant. He referred to Rule 78 of theRules 2014 and pointed out that the only remedy is underSection 91 of the MCS Act. He also referred into service Rule25(2) of Rules 2014 and vehemently argued that the ReturningOfficer has to make a summary inquiry, and he is notempowered to make the inquiry in detail as if it is aproceeding. He would submit that whether really respondentNo.6 denied collecting sugarcane from petitioners is a disputedfact. Otherwise, also, it is not the jurisdiction of the ReturningOfficer. By way of amendment to Section 26, the active andnon-active member clause has been deleted. However, everySociety has its bylaws. It has a statutory force. Therefore,barely amending Sections 26 and 27 of the Act 1960 would notautomatically make the bylaws redundant about thequalification to contest the election. 10.Learned counsel for respondent No.6 Mr. D.J. Choudharihas argued that three candidates have already been declaredelected unopposed. His arguments are also in tune with thearguments of learned counsel Mr. Kadam. He referred to Rule 6of the Rules 2014 and argued that Sections 26 and 27 of theAct 1960 have been amended in the context of the provisionalvoters list. Reading these amended provisions together would
Decision
22 901-WP.1239-24 & ors.(oral jud.).odtthis Court does not find any illegality in rejecting thenominations. As a result, all these writ petitions fail. Hence, thefollowing order :O R D E R(i)All writ petitions stand dismissed.(ii)No order as to costs.(iii)Rule stand discharged.(iv)Needless to say, the rejection of the petitionsagainst nomination does not take away the rightof the aggrieved persons to impugn the electionsunder Section 91 of the MCS Act. (S. G. MEHARE, J.)...vmk/-