High Court
Legal Reasoning
(5) WP-6782-2025.odtrequirements under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 read with Provisothereunder was made.8.Having considered submissions advanced by learnedAdvocates appearing for respective parties, before delving intocontroversy raised in this petition, it is necessary to make referenceto relevant provision of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies(Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. Rule 21 deals withpresentation of nomination paper and requirements for validnominations. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 alongwith Proviso thereunderreads thus:“(3) Any person who is not subject to any disqualification asa voter under the Act, these rules or by-laws and whose nameis entered in the list of voters for the constituency, for whichthe candidate is nominated, may subscribed as proposer andseconder:Provided that, the nomination paper shall be accompaniedby 1[a declaration], specified by SCEA, mentioning thecandidate is not disqualified under section 73CA of the Act2[***].”9.Rule 25 deals with scrutiny of nomination papers, whichreads thus:“25. Scrutiny of nomination papers.—(1) On the date fixed, for the scrutiny of nomination papersunder rule 18, the candidates, one proposer of eachcandidate duly authorized in writing by each candidate,may attend at the time and place appointed in this behalf,and the Returning Officer shall give or cause to give them allreasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers ofall candidates which have been delivered as required by rule (6) WP-6782-2025.odt20. No other person shall be allowed to attend the scrutiny ofnomination.(2) The Returning Officer shall then examine the nominationpapers and shall decide all objections which may be made toany nomination and may, either on such objection or on hisown motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as hethinks necessary reject any nomination on any of thefollowing grounds, that is to say :—(a) that the candidate is disqualified for being chosen tofill the seat by or under the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws ;(b) that the proposer or seconder is disqualified fromsubscribing a nomination paper;(c) that there has been a failure to comply with any of theprovisions of rule 21 or 23;(d) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer orthe seconder on the nomination paper is not genuine.(3) Nothing contained in clause (c) or (d) of sub-rule (2) shallbe deemed to authorize the rejection of the nomination of anycandidate on the ground of any irregularity in respect of anomination paper, if the candidate has been duly nominatedby means of another nomination paper in respect of which noirregularity has been committed.(4) The Returning Officer shall not reject any nominationpaper on the ground of any defect which is not of asubstantial character.(5) The Returning Officer shall hold the scrutiny on the dateappointed in this behalf under rule 18, and shall not allowany adjournment of the proceedings, except when suchproceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or openviolence or by causes beyond his control :Provided that, in case any objection is raised by theReturning Officer or is made by any other person, thecandidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut it, notlater than the next day before the publication of list of valid (7) WP-6782-2025.odtnomination and the Returning Officer shall record hisdecision on the date to which the proceedings have beenadjourned.(6) The Returning Officer shall endorse on each nominationpaper his decision accepting or rejecting the same and, if thenomination paper is rejected, he shall record in writing, abrief statement of his reasons for such rejection, and a copyof such statement shall be immediately supplied on demandto the candidate or to the proposer concerned. The copy ofsuch statement shall be sent invariably to the SCEA orDistrict Co-operative Election Officer, as the case may be.”10.In addition to aforesaid Rules, State Co-operative ElectionAuthority (SCEA) framed instructions dated 15.06.2018 forscrutiny of nomination papers. Clause C(ii)(1) and (7) of saidinstructions provides that nomination can be rejected in casecandidate fails to file requisite affidavit or such affidavit isincomplete or sans requisite details. In light of aforesaid statutoryprovisions and instructions, it would be apposite to find out as towhether valid declaration has been submitted by respondent nos.4to 30 alongwith their nominations, particularly as todisqualification as on the date of submission of nomination forms.11.Pertinently, form of nomination paper has been prescribedunder Rules in FORM E-5 after signature of candidate, hisproposer and seconder the format of declarations to be made bycandidates is provided. The relevant declaration as todisqualification prescribed under Section 73CA of the Act readsthus: (8) WP-6782-2025.odt“Declaration by CandidateI hereby declare that I do not incur any disqualificationunder Section 73CA of Maharashtra Co-operative SocietiesAct, 1960.”12.Now turning back to nomination submitted by respondentnos.4 to 30, it can be observed that in first paragraph theymentioned that they are submitting nomination on 21.06.2025 forelection of Society. However, there is verification to the contents ofapplication and date of submission of nomination is mentioned as22.05.2025. It is not in dispute that respondent nos.4 to 30 havesubmitted their nomination on 22.05.2025, wherein necessarystipulation that they did not incur disqualification in terms ofSection 73CA has been incorporated. Therefore, merelymentioning of date as 21.06.2025 in first paragraph of declarationcannot be considered as substantive or fundamental defect innomination. If declaration is read as whole, it suggest thatrespondent nos.4 to 30 have made requisite declaration on22.05.2025 while submitting nomination form. Similarly, contentsof declaration are verified on 22.05.2025. It is, therefore, evidentthat there is compliance of requirement of Rules. The harmoniousreading of nomination form with declaration clearly spells out thatrespondents have made declaration that they were not subjected todisqualification as on date of submission of nomination papers.13.Reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 anddocuments appended thereto clearly suggests that Returning (9) WP-6782-2025.odtOfficer has consciously applied his mind to the contents ofnomination form and declarations given thereunder while dealingwith objections submitted by petitioners and rightly uphold itsvalidity and rejected objections of petitioners.14.In result, Writ Petition is devoid of merit. Hence, dismissed.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/June-2025
Arguments
(1) WP-6782-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.6782 OF 2025PRAKASH S/O KALLAPPA KANTEKURE AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS …Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for Petitioners.Mr. D. R. Korade, AGP for Respondent No.1.Mr. S. K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh h/f Mr. U. L. Momale, Advocate forRespondent Nos.4 to 17.Mr. Umesh Gitte, Advocate for Respondent Nos.19 to 21 and 23 to30.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 10th JUNE, 2025.ORDER:- 1.The petitioners impugn order/communication dated27.05.2025 issued by Assistant Registrar, Co-operativeSocieties/Returning Officer/Taluka Co-operative Election Officer,thereby rejecting objections to nomination papers submitted forensuing election to the Managing Committee of Shri MahatmaBasweshwar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Murum, Tq.Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.2.ShriMahatma Basweshwar Nagari Sahakari PatsansthaMaryadit Murum is a society duly registered in accordance withprovisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (forshort “the Act”). The petitioners are members of Credit Society. (2) WP-6782-2025.odtSince establishment of society in the year 2008, elections ofManaging Committee are regularly held. Since term of lastManaging Committee was to expire, respondent no.3 finalizedvoter list of members of Society and on 14.05.2025 declared electionprogramme for ensuing election of Managing Committee from thestage of nomination. As per said programme, nomination paperswere to be filled in during period from 19.05.2025 to 23.05.2025.The scrutiny of nomination papers was fixed on 26.05.2025. Thepublication of list of contesting candidates was fixed on 12.06.2025and date of voting is fixed on 21.06.2025.3.The respondent nos.4 to 30 submitted their nominations forelection as members of Managing Committee. The petitionersraised objections to their nominations on the ground thatnominations require to be filed alongwith affidavit containingdeclaration of candidate that he has not suffered disqualification interms of Rule 21(3) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Electionto Committee) Rules, 2014 (for short ‘Election Rules, 2014”),however, affidavit submitted by nominated candidates sanscompliance of such requirements. The Returning Officer rejectedsuch objections upholding validity of nominations andcommunicated his decision as to rejection of objections underimpugned communication. (3) WP-6782-2025.odt4.Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, learned Advocate appearing forpetitioners submits that Rule 21 of Election Rules, 2014 providesthat any person who is not subject to any disqualification as a voterunder the Act, Rules or bye-laws may submit his candidature. Suchnomination paper shall be accompanied by declaration specified byState Co-operative Election Authority (SCEA), mentioning thatcandidate is not disqualified under Section 73CA of the Act. Byinviting attention of this Court to the declaration submitted byrespondent nos.4 to 30 Mr. Patil Jamalpurkar submits thatdeclaration is given as to the non-disqualification as on 21.06.2025and not as on 22.05.2025 i.e. date of submission of nominationpapers. According to Mr. Patil Jamalpurkar, aforesaid defect isfundamental having effect of non-filing of requisite affidavits interms of Proviso to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 of Election Rules, 2014.5.Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar would further submit thatReturning Officer was under obligation to pass reasoned order onobjections submitted by petitioners and communicate his decision.However, impugned communication has been addressed topetitioners without providing copy of order, if any. Mr. PatilJamalpurkar would further submit that order acceptingnominations of respondents needs to be quashed and set aside inexercise of Writ jurisdiction of this Court. In support of hiscontentions he relies upon judgment of this Court in case of (4) WP-6782-2025.odtMurlidhar Rangrao Gaikwad Vs. State Co-operativeElection Authority passed in Writ Petition No.4072/2025 dated02.04.2025 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case ofMr. Sadashiv s/o Shivaji Dhenge Vs. The State ofMaharashtra and Others passed in Writ PetitionNo.2105/2023 dated 08.02.2024.6. Per contra, Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate appearing forrespondent nos.2 and 3 submits that objections submitted bypetitioners were duly considered by Returning Officer and rejectedby recording valid reason. He points out endorsement as torejection of objections made by Returning Officer dated 26.05.2025.According to Mr. Kadam, communication of aforesaid order is madeto petitioners, which is referred as impugned order in present WritPetition. Mr. Kadam, by inviting attention of this Court to Sub-rules of Rule 25 of Election Rules, 2014, submits that ReturningOfficer is not expected to reject nomination papers, unless there isdefect of substantial character or on the ground of anyirregularities in respect of nomination papers.7.Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for nominatedcandidates adopts submission of Mr. Kadam and contends thatupon bare perusal of declaration submitted by respondent nos.4 to30 alongwith verification, it is evident that sufficient compliance of