High Court
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) wp4577.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD913 WRIT PETITION NO. 4577 OF 2025PANDHARINATH RAMBHAU PAWARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERSMr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for the respondent-State.Mr. S. K. Kadam, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:03.04.2025PC :-01.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kale for the petitioner, learnedAGP for respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Mr. Kadam forrespondent Nos. 2 and 3.02.The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievancethat his name is not included in the provisional voters’ list prepared forthe election of respondent No.5 – sugar factory. No opportunity is alsogiven to him to approach the Authority by collecting requisite material/information from the office of respondent No.5, as same was deliberatelykept closed, to avoid giving information or documents to the membersfrom the office of the factory.
Legal Reasoning
( 2 ) wp4577.2503.The facts unfolded and submitted by the learned Advocate forthe petitioner are that writ petitions were filed in this Court bearing WritPetition No. 7440 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 10332 of 2022 as regardsgrievance in respect of management committee of respondent No.5. ThisCourt while deciding the petitions, passed following order :-“(i) The respondent No.3/State Co-operative ElectionAuthority shall commence the election process and shallconclude the same by the end of May, 2025 as per tentativeprogramme placed on record at Exhibits X and Y. (ii) The respondents or their officers are restrained frompostponing, halting or terminating the election process whichis to be undertaken by the respondent No.3.(iii) Till the conclusion of election process, District DeputyRegistrar Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar, is appointedfor administration and the supervision of the respondentNo.4/Society by replacing earlier authorized officer.(iv) Orders dated 26.07.2024 and 23.07.2024 passed byRegional Joint Director (Sugar), Ahmednagar and respondentNo.2 are quashed and set aside.(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.”04.It is submitted that for conducting election, it was necessaryto observe transparency in the proceedings for preparation of provisionallist of voters for the year 2024-25 by respondent No.2. As per the said ( 3 ) wp4577.25programme, the provisional list was to be prepared on 03.03.2025.Objections were called from 03.03.2025 till 12.03.2025. It is a case ofthe petitioner that when some of the members went to the office of thesugar factory to collect ‘no dues certificate’ and other documentsrequired, the office of the factory was not working. The employees in theoffice were entertaining only few persons. Such complaints were filed on11.03.2025 with the Regional Joint Director (Sugar). However, inspite ofthe same, no cognizance was taken. Thus, the petitioner himselfapproached respondent No.2 by filing complaint on 18.03.2025. By thesaid complaint, he also requested that his name to be included in theprovisional voters’ list. He also stated that there was no one in the officeof the sugar factory. There is no prior notice issued to him. It is furthersubmitted that still the petitioner deposited amount of Rs.5200/- in theaccount of the sugar factory, so as to avoid technical difficulty of beingdefaulter. The petitioner, thereafter, on 24.03.2025 informed theAuthorized Officer and District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,Jalna, raising grievance that the cashier of the sugar factory was notpresent and he was not even attending phone calls. He issued a chequeof Rs.4200/- drawn in favour of the sugar factory.05.It is, thus, grievance of the petitioner that inspite of these ( 4 ) wp4577.25efforts, his name is not included in the provisional voters’ list. The actionof respondent No.5 is deliberate, only to keep away the persons likepetitioner from the election process. He relies upon Rule 11 of theMaharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Commitee) Rules, 2014.[for short “the Rules”]. He submits that since opportunity is denied, thepetitioner is deprived of his right. He, thus, prays that his name beincluded in the voters’ list and further to decide the application of thepetitioner dated 18.03.2025 and 24.03.2025 by respondent Nos. 2 & 4.06.Learned Advocate Mr. Kadam invites attention to the electionprogramme. He submits that objections were called from 03.03.2025 to12.03.2025. He invited attention to the representations (total-3) dated11.03.2025 and submits that no any representation/complaint is signedby the present petitioner. Present petitioner, for the first time lodgedcomplaint on 18.03.2025, which is after the cut off date of raisingobjections i.e. 12.03.2025. In this view, now the petitioner cannot raiseany grievance as he did not approach in time for raising any objection.The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be considered now.The second complaint is of 24.03.2025 i.e. also beyond the period fixedfor calling the objections. He, thus, prays for rejection of the petition. ( 5 ) wp4577.2507.Learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 adopts the argumentsof learned Advocate Mr. Kadam. He submits that only such objections,which are filed within time can be considered and prays for rejection ofthe writ petition.08.After hearing the parties, the question that needs to beconsidered is – as to whether the petitioner has approached in timeraising objection about non-inclusion of his name in the voters’ list andwhether grievance made by other members can be considered to begrievance of petitioner in view of Rule 11 of the Rules.09.About the factual position and the dates, there is no dispute.It is submission of the petitioner that the petitioner filed objection for thefirst time on 18.03.2025 and thereafter on 24.03.2025. On this count,this Court need not consider grievance of the petitioner.10.So far as Rule 11 of the Rules is concerned, same isreproduced as under :-11. Claims and objections to the provisional list of voters and thefinal list of voters for the societies having society or societies andindividuals as members.— ( 6 ) wp4577.25(1) When any provisional list of voters is published for invitingclaims and objections, any omission or error in respect of name oraddress or other particulars in the list may be brought to the notice of theDistrict Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward Co-operativeElection Officer in writing by any member of the society concerned who isa voter or any representative authorized to vote on behalf of such societyduring office hours within ten days from the date of publication of theprovisional list of voters.(2) Any member of the society concerned making a claim orraising objection shall do so by a separate petition, which shall bepresented to the District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or WardCo-operative Election Officer during office hours, before the last datepublished for inviting claims and objections. Such claims or objectionsshall be preferred in writing and state the grounds on which the claim isbased or the objection is raised, as the case may be.(3) The District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward Co-operative Election Officer shall, after making such enquiries as deemednecessary in this regard, consider each claim or objection, and give hisdecision thereon in writing to the persons concerned within ten days fromthe last date prescribed for receiving the claims and objections and finalvoters list should be published within the period of fifteen days from thelast date prescribed for receiving the claims and objections. The list asfinalized by the District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or WardCo-operative Election Officer after deciding all claims and objection shallbe final list of voters.(4) The copies of the final list of voters shall be displayed on thenotice board of the District Co-operative Election Officer and also on thenotice board of the society at least ten days before the declaration of theelection programme and in no case later than fifteen days from thefinalization of claims and objections. The District Co-operative ElectionOfficer may also cause it to be published on the official website of theSCEA, if any.(5) If any change in the final voters list in accordance with sub-rule (4) of rule 10 is required, the District Co-operative Election Officer orthe person authorized by him, after making such inquiry as he deems fit,make necessary changes in the final voter list.11.By looking at the rules, learned Advocate for the petitionersubmits that the grievance raised by said persons of 11.03.2025 need to ( 7 ) wp4577.25be considered. His further submission is that when the Authority wasmade aware that the office of the factory is closed or office staff is notcooperating, at least cognizance could have been taken by the Authority.Closing of the office goes root of the matter and shows erroneouselection process.12.This Court finds that the Rule 11 cannot be read in themanner in which learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted. It isfor each and every particular member to raise his own grievance. In thepresent case, it is seen that the petitioner himself did not approach anyof the Authority prior to 12.03.2025. This Court does not find that thegrievance of others can be said to be the grievance raised by thepetitioner. It is pointed out that the persons, who raised grievance on11.03.2025 have not approached the Authority or this Court andtherefore the grievance need not be considered by this Court. During thecourse of arguments, learned Advocate for the respondents submittedthat the grievances of the persons have already been considered by theAuthority and orders are passed.13.Be as it may, for the present this Court finds that thepetitioner has failed to show that the he has raised any grievance prior to ( 8 ) wp4577.2512.03.2025 i.e. the last date for raising objections. The petitioner hasrelied upon judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 511 of2023 to submit that inclusion of the voters in the list would not be aninterference with the election process. This Court has interferred in thatmatter considering that large number of voters were sought to bedeleted by order challenged in that petition. The Court was consideringRule 7 of the Rules. This Court finds that said judgment is not applicableto the present case.14.This Court does not find substance in the petition. Thepetition, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/mar25/wp4577.25