Judgment 1 wp3254.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3254 OF 2016
1. Sahebrao S/o. Sadashiv More,
Age: 62 years, Occupation : Practicing
Lawyer & Agriculturist, R/o. Morkhed Bk.,
Tq. Malkapur, Distt. Buldana.
2. Nina S/o. Bajirao Tharkar,
Age : 50 years, Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Dasarkhed, Tq. Malkapur,
Distt. Buldana.
3. Sujit S/o. Bhaurao Bhosle,
Age : 30 years, Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Tighra, Tq. Malkapur, Distt.Buldana.
4. Vijay S/o. Madhukar Patil,
Age : 56 years, Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Panhera, Tq. Malkapur, Distt.Buldana.
5. Prasad S/o. Narayanrao Jadhav,
Age : 36 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Waghud, Tq. Malkapur, Distt.Buldana.
6. Mangalsingh S/o. Dashrathsingh Rajput,
Age : 52 years, Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Nimbhari, Tq. Malkapur, Distt.Buldana.
7. Raghuvir S/o. Dinanath Patil,
Age : 70 years, Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Yerli, Tq. Malkapur, Distt.Buldana.
8. Gopal S/o. Jagdeo Falke,
Age : 52 years, Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Almpur, Tq. Malkapur, Distt.Buldana.
9. Prabhakar S/o. Eknath Wankhade,
Age : 48 years, Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Nimgaon, Tq. Nandura, Distt.Buldana.
.... PETITIONER.
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:29:47 :::
Judgment 2 wp3254.16.odt
// VERSUS //
1. The District Co-operative Election Officer,
And Regiional Deputy Director, Textiles,
Office at New Administrative Building No.2,
B-Wing, 8th Floor, Civil Lines, Nagpur-10.
2. The Returning Officer and Assistant
Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Malkapur, Tq. Malkapur, Distt. Buldana.
3. Executive Director,
'Vir Jagdeorao Kapus Utpadak Sahakari
Sut-Girni Maryadit, Malkapur bearing
Registration No. BULD/PRG/(A)/D-H-I
National Highway, Malkapur, Tq. Malkapur,
Distt. Buldana.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.J.Thakkar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.S.Ghate, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri K.R.Lule, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : AUGUST 04, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the petitioners and respondent No.1 and the learned A.G.P. for the respondent No. 2.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:29:47 :::Judgment 3 wp3254.16.odt
3. The petitioners are members of different Co-operative Societies.
The elections of committee of Vir Jagdeorao Kapus Utpadak Sahakari Sut-
Girni Maryadit, Malkapur are being held. The societies of which the petitioners are members are the member-societies of committee of Vir Jagdeorao Kapus Utpadak Sahakari Sut-Girni Maryadit, Malkapur. As per the Rules, the member-societies are entitled to send a representative for the election of Vir Jagdeorao Kapus Utpadak Sahakari Sut-Girni Maryadit, Malkapur. The member-societies of which the petitioners are members are under Administrator.
As per the programme, the provisional electoral roll is published on 25th April, 2016, the objections to the provisional voters' list were to be submitted till 4th May, 2016, the objections were to be decided till 16th May, 2016 and the final voters' list was to be published on 23rd May, 2016. The Administrator of each of the member-society, nominated himself as the representative of the society and forwarded his name to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 rejected the proposal sent by the administrators, as according to Rule 10(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 the name of the representative of the member-society has to be finalized by the annual general body of the society. The petitioners submitted objection dated 4th May, 2016 to the respondent No.1 stating that the special meeting of the general body was called on 10th May, 2016 and the name of the representative of each ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:29:47 ::: Judgment 4 wp3254.16.odt member-society would be submitted on 12th May, 2016 along with resolution as required by Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 2014. This objection is rejected by the respondent No.1 and the petitioners being aggrieved in the matter have filed this writ petition.
4. A special meeting of the general body of each of the member-
society to which the petitioners belong has been held on 10th May, 2016 in which resolution is passed for communicating the names of the petitioners as representative of the society. The information alongwith copy of the resolution is sent to the respondent No.1 on 12th May, 2016. Thus, the respondent No.1 is given names of the representative of the member-societies of which the petitioners are members much before the last date fixed for deciding the objections to the provisional voters' list.
5. The respondent No.1 contends that earlier the administrator of each of the member-society has forwarded his own name and names of the petitioners are forwarded after the last date of publishing the provisional voters' list was over and the respondent No.1 can consider the change in the name only in two eventualities as provided by Rule 10(4) and Rule 11(1) of the Rules of 2014 and as the case of the petitioners does not fit in any of the two provisions the request of the petitioners cannot be considered.
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:29:47 :::Judgment 5 wp3254.16.odt
6. It is undisputed that the member-societies, of which the petitioners are members, are entitled to communicate the name of their representative and the representatives have right to vote at the election of committee of Vir Jagdeorao Kapus Utpadak Sahakari Sut-Girni Maryadit, Malkapur. The member-societies cannot be deprived of their legitimate statutory right because of the error or mischief of the administrator. The legality of the resolution passed in the special meeting of the general body of the member-societies have not been challenged by the respondents. In this background, the legitimate statutory right of the member-societies and their representatives cannot be frustrated.
7. The learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioners have statutory alternate remedy of filing dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and this Court should not interfere with the election process. To support the submission, reliance is placed on the following judgments :
I) Judgment, dated 22nd February, 2016, given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Vishwanath & ors, in SPL (C) No. 22902 of 2011;
II) Judgment, dated 15.06.2015, given by this Court in the case of Pandurang Laxman Kadam & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., in Writ Petition No. 5257/2015.
III) Judgment given in the case of Gangagiri Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Maryadit & ors Vs. The District Co-operative Election Officer & Ors.., reported in 2016(3) ALL MR 121.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:29:47 :::
Judgment 6 wp3254.16.odt
IV) Judgment given in the case of Shriram Mukundrao Korde vs.
State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in 2015(3) ALL MR 53.
V) Judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2001 (4) ALL MR 863.
The proposition of law is well settled and this Court should refrain itself and should not interfere with election process / programme, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. However, in the facts of the present case, the grievance of the petitioners can be redressed out without disturbing the election process/ programme.
8. Writ Petition No.3308 of 2016 was filed before this Court complaining that names of about 2106 members have been illegally struck-
out from the provisional voters' list. This Court granted interim order on 17th June, 2016, because of which the election programme could not proceed further from the stage of allotment of symbols. Writ Petition No. 3308 of 2016 is dismissed on 19th July, 2016. The learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has stated that the revised programme is yet to be published.
The learned advocate for the petitioners, on instructions states that the petitioners only want that their names should be included in the voters' list and they should be permitted to vote at the election and that the petitioners are not intending to contest the election or to raise any dispute ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:29:47 ::: Judgment 7 wp3254.16.odt regarding contesting the election. In these facts, in my view, if the respondent No.1 is directed to include the names of the petitioners in the voters' list it cannot be said that the election programme would be disturbed.
9. The learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has raised technical objection that the petition is not filed by the member-societies but the representatives and therefore, the petition should not be entertained.
As recorded earlier, the resolution passed in the special meeting of the general body of the member-societies are not disputed and because of the resolution the petitioners have got the right to participate in the election and therefore, the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of locus. The conduct of the respondent No.1, who is an independent authority (Election Officer), in opposing the claim of the petitioners on such technical ground has to be deprecated.
10. Hence, the following order :
i) The impugned decision of the respondent No.1 is quashed.
ii) The respondent No.1 is directed to include the names of the petitioners in the final voters' list and permit them to vote at the election of committee Vir Jagdeorao Kapus Utpadak Sahakari Sut-Girni Maryadit, Malkapur.::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:29:47 :::
Judgment 8 wp3254.16.odt
iii) The undertaking given on behalf of the petitioners that they do
not intend to contest the election is accepted.
The petition is allowed in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
Authenticated copy be given to the parties.
JUDGE RRaut.
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:29:47 ::: Judgment 9 wp3254.16.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : R.B. Raut, PS Uploaded on : 04.08.2016.
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2016 00:29:47 :::