Bombay High Court
Sahebrao S/O Sadashiv More And ... vs The District Cooperative ... on 4 August, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
