High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1)wp4801.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD904 WRIT PETITION NO. 4801 OF 2025ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 4802 OF 2025ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 4803 OF 2025ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 4805 OF 2025ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 4804 OF 2025ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 4806 OF 2025ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 4809 OF 2025ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 4807 OF 2025ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 4808 OF 2025ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 4810 OF 2025ANDMAGAN MURLIDHAR BAVISKAR….Petitioner VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARYAND OTHERS…..Respondents 1 of 10
Legal Reasoning
(2)wp4801.25Mr. B. R. Warma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 & 3Mr. S. K. Kadam, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 6Mnr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5Mr. G. D. Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 4 CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:09th APRIL, 2025P. C. 1. Since the question involved in all these petitions iscommon and since the petitioner is same and respondent Nos. 1to 4 are also the same, all these petitions are taken up togetherfor final disposal at the stage of admission by consent of theparties. In all these petitions nominations forms of respondentNo.5 is accepted by order of appellate authority. 2.For the purpose of convenience facts have takenfrom the writ petition No. 4801/2025.3.The petitioner is a member of respondent Nos. 4society. Respondent Nos. 1 is the State. Respondent Nos. 2 is theReturning Officer. Respondent Nos. 3 is the Assistant Registrar.2 of 10 (3)wp4801.25Respondent No. 4 is the Multi Purpose Cooperative SocietiesRegistered under the provisions of Maharashtra CooperativeSocieties Act. Respondent No. 5 is the person whose nominationform was rejected by the Returning Officer. However, in appeal itwas allowed by the Superior Officer i.e. Assistant RegistrarCooperative Societies, Chopda. Respondent No.6 is the StateCooperative Election Authority who conducts elections to theCooperative Societies.4.The facts, in short are that the petitioner is amember of respondent No.4 society. There are total 187members of the society. Respondent No. 6 declared electionprogram on 10-03-2025 for term from 2025. Nominations wereto be filled in from 17-03-2025 to 21-03-2025. Scrutiny was on23-03-2025 at 11 am. List of valid candidates was to be declaredon 25-03-2025. 09-04-2025 is a date fixed for allotment ofsymbols. Election was to be held on 21-04-2025.5.Respondent No. 5 submitted nomination form for the3 of 10 (4)wp4801.25post of ‘Director’ from the category reserved for SC/ST inWP/4801/2025 and in all other writ petition nomination formsfrom General Category. The petitioner raised objection beforethe Returning Officer stating that respondents have not filled innomination form completely and prayed that these nominationsforms be rejected. The Returning Officer, considering theobjections held that nomination forms are not properly filled inand rejected the nomination forms. The affidavit is alsoincomplete. The respondents therefore, filed appeals to theAssistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Chopda. It is stated inthe appeal that respondents happen to be poor agriculturist andare not aware of the formality and do not have sufficientknowledge and therefore, in Annextures ‘A’ they could not writetheir names. It is stated that, however, they have signed on theaffidavit and prayed for allowing the appeals by setting aside theorder passed by the Returning Officer. 6.The learned Taluka Cooperative Societies ElectionOfficer issued notice directing the parties to remain present in4 of 10 (5)wp4801.25the office on 01-04-2025. In the appeal the petitioner was notmade a party. The learned Election Officer held the hearing andallowed the appeal on 01-04-2025. The petitioner thusaggrieved by acceptance of the nomination papers, hasapproached this court.7.The learned Advocate Mr. Warma vehemently arguedthat the Election Officer had allowed the appeal without hearingthe petitioner. Nomination forms of the respondents wererejected on an objections by the petitioner, it was necessary tohear the petitioner as well. He submits that the defect in thenomination forms was of substantial character in view of Rule21 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election toCommittee) and prays for allowing the applications.8. The learned Advocate Mr. Patil, vehemently submitsthat defect in the forms was not of substantial character. Nowthe election process is setting in motion. The object of filingpresent objection was that in absence of these respondents the5 of 10 (6)wp4801.25election would be unopposed. The candidate need not writesymbol in view of section 73 (c) of the Maharashtra CooperativeSocieties Act. There are no illegalities committed by the ElectionOfficer. He relies on section 7(d) of the Maharashtra CooperativeSocieties Act and Rule 20 of Maharashtra Cooperative Society(Election) Rules (‘Said Rules’ for the sake of brevity). Fromexplanation 5 of the said Rules he points out all the nominationspapers are signed by the candidates. He, thus, prays fordismissal of the writ petition.9.Mr. Kadam, learned advocate for the respondentssubmits that scrutiny is made under Rule 25. Grounds forrejection are given in clause-A and C of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 25are material. The proviso to sub-Rule 2 is also material. Hesubmits that in the Annexures ‘A’ even the names of thecandidates are not written. The State Cooperative ElectionAuthority (SCEA) has provided format of nomination formannexures ‘A’. The candidates are required to fill in thenomination in the said format. Not writing the name in the6 of 10 (7)wp4801.25nomination form Annexures ‘A’ is a defect of substantialcharacter. There is no provision to remove objection in thenomination forms. If time is given for removal of objection, thenthe time given for the election would be redundant. He, thussupports the petitioners.10.The learned AGP for the respondent No.3 supportsthe order.11.Considering these petitions what requires to be seenis Rule 21 Sub-Rule (2)(3) which reads as under:-“21.Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for validnominations:(2)On the presentation of a nomination paper, the ReturningOfficer shall satisfy himself that the names and the numbers ofthe candidates and his proposser and seconder as are entered inthe nomination paper are the same as those entered in the list ofvoters excepting in the case of nomination paper presented underthe provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 73(B) for reservedconstituency, the candidate shall attach the attested copy of thelist of existing committee members to which he represents. If anomination paper is rejected under this rule, the ReturningOfficer shall record thereon his reasons for rejecting the same.(3)Any person who is not subject to any disqualification as avoter under the Act, these rules or bye-laws and whose name isentered in the list of voters for the constituency, for which thecandidate is nominated, may subscribe as proposer and seconder:25.Scrutiny of nomination papers :(a)that the candidate is disqualified for being chosen to fillthe seat by or under the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws;(b)that the proposer or seconder is disqualified from7 of 10 (8)wp4801.25subscribing a nomination paper;(c)that there has been a failure to comply with any of theprovisions of rule 21 or 23.”12.These rules needs to be considered in view of actualnominations forms filled in. From the Annexures ‘A’ tonomination formss it is clearly seen that the respondents havenot even put any date, their names, declaration about theircategories. They have not given even choice of symbols.Annexures ‘A’ is also totally blank except the signature. Thiscourt finds that Annexures ‘A’ is thus totally incomplete. It is notpointed out that said defect is curable and opportunity need begiven to carte defects.13.In the judgment reported in 2016(4) Mh.L.J. 353 inthe case of Baghele Narottam Gendlal and another Vs State ofMaharashtra and others this court has considered section 73-CAof the Act and Rules 21(2), 25(2)(4) & (5). It is held thatsubmission of affidavit to the effect that candidates have notincurred any disqualification under Section 73-CA of the SocietyAct is mandatory and in case it is not filled in the Returning8 of 10 (9)wp4801.25Officer would be justified in rejecting the nomination paper. Inthat case, the nomination forms were rejected as the petitionerstherein had not signed affidavit ‘B’. In that view, the nominationswere rejected and same was upheld by the high court.14.In the present case Election Officer had consideredthis aspect and held that the nomination forms were notcomplete and rejected the nomination forms.15.In the appeal only justification given for notcompletely filling in Annexures ‘A’ is due to inadvertence andignorance. The fact of incomplete nomination forms is thusaccepted by the respondents. The appellate authority howeverdid not consider this aspect. He did not properly consider theRule 25(4). He taken the defect to be not of substantialcharacter and wrongly relied upon the judgment inWP/1778/2015. He also did not consider that he entertainedthe appeal without adding this petition as party. The judgment isthus without following basic principles of natural justice. 9 of 10 (10)wp4801.2516.Considering all above, this court finds that theappellate authority has failed to appreciate the law correctly.The Returning Officer had rightly rejected the nomination forms.The appellate authority however wrongly interfered in the saidorders and passed erroneous orders. This court finds that theimpugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and sameare set aside.17.All Writ petitions stand allowed in terms of prayerclause-A. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]VishalK/wp4801.2510 of 10