Bombay High Court
Sarang Dnyanoba Mate And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 25 August, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP 5594 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No.5594 of 2016
1) Sarang s/o. Dnyanoba Mate,
Age 26 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
2) Bapusaheb s/o. Shrimant Mate,
Age 27 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
3)
Ganesh s/o. Prabhu Mate,
Age 21 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
4) Sachin s/o Pandurang Mate,
Age 26 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
5) Sulochana Shrimant Mate,
Age 42 years,
Occupation : Household.
6) Vishal s/o Shrimant Mate,
Age 21 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
7) Mohan s/o Vasantrao Mate,
Age 24 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
8) Maharudra s/o Vasantrao Mate,
Age 28 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
9) Nilesh s/o Mithuram Mate,
Age 22 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2016 00:08:29 :::
2 WP 5594 of 2016
10) Ajay s/o Vishnu Mate,
Age 22 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
11) Dhananjay s/o Pandurang Mate,
Age 23 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
12) Gokul s/o Shrimant Mate,
Age 23 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
13) Aruna Vishnu Mate,
Age 40 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
14) Amol s/o Mithuram Mate,
Age 22 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
15) Navnath Vishnu Mate,
Age 24 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
All R/o Ful Pimpalgaon,
Taluka Majalgaon, Dist Beed. .. Petitioners.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Cooperative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2) The Maharashtra State
Co-operative Election Authority,
Pune.
3) The Assistant Registrar
Cooperative Societies, Majalgaon
District Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2016 00:08:29 :::
3 WP 5594 of 2016
4) The Returning Officer,
Ful-Pimpalgaon Seva Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit,
Ful Pimpalaon,
Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed.
5) Ful Pimpalgaon Seva Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit, Ful Pimpalgaon,
Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed.
Through its Secretary.
6) Ram s/o Chaturbhuj Chalak,
Age 26 years,
Occupation: Agriculture
R/o Ful Pimpalgaon,
Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed. .. Respondents.
--------
Shri. Sudhir K. Chavan, Advocate, for petitioners.
Shri. A.P. Basarkar, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Shri. S.K. Kadam, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 4.
----------
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATE : 25 AUGUST 2016
JUDGMENT:
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent herd both the sides. One Advocate Shri. P.D.
Suryawanshi had filed appearance for respondent No.6,
4 WP 5594 of 2016
who has taken objection before the returning officer and
reply affidavit is also filed of respondent No.6 to the
present petition. But he did not turn up to contest the
matter. On 20-8-2016 the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the Returning
Officer were heard but Advocate Shri. Suryawanshi
remained absent and so for giving hearing to him the
matter was adjourned to 23-8-2016. On 23-8-2016 he was
not available but nobody was holding for him so the
matter was adjourned to 24-8-2016. On that date learned
counsel Shri. Suryawanshi filed leave note for one day but
nobody was present to hold for him and so the matter was
adjourned to 25-8-2016. On this date also Advocate Shri.
Suryawanshi did not turn up. It is clear that he wanted to
keep away himself from the Court to avoid the decision of
the present matter. It can be said that such conduct is
unbecoming on the part of the Advocate. Matters
involving election cannot be kept pending and particularly
when the results are withheld due to the order of the
Court and so this Court is deciding the matter.
5 WP 5594 of 2016
2) The petitioners are members of respondent
No.5 - Seva Society from village Ful-Pimpalgaon, Tahsil
Majalgaon, District Beed. The election programme of the
society was declared on 9-5-2016. The provisional voters
list was published on the same day. Objections to the
voters list and claims were to be filed between 9-5-2016
and 14-5-2016. It appears that respondent No.6 filed
objections against the petitioners before the returning
officer and on that basis the returning officer deleted the
names of the petitioners from voters list and the final list
was published on 17-5-2016. Present petition came to be
filed on 18-5-2016.
3) It is the case of the petitioners that as per bye-
laws and the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act 1960, returning officer had no power to
make inquiry regarding objection taken against them. It is
also the contention of the petitioners that they were not
heard on the objection taken against them and principles
of natural justice were not followed. In view of nature of
dispute, this Court, other Hon'ble Judge, had allowed the
petitioners to vote in the election by order dated 7-6-2016.
6 WP 5594 of 2016
It was ordered that votes of these petitioners are to be
kept separate and only after the decision of the present
matter the votes are to be counted.
4) Attention of this Court was drawn to the
provision of section 11 of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960 and it runs as under :-
"11.
Power of Registrar to decide certain
questions. When any question arises whether a
person is an agriculturist or not, or whether any
person resides in the area of operation of the society
or not or whether a person is or is not engaged in or
carrying on any profession, business or employment,
or whether a person belongs or does not belong to
such class of persons as declared under sub-section
(1A) of section 22 and has or has not incurred a
disqualification under that sub-section, such question
shall be decided by the Registrar and his decision shall
be final but no decision adverse to any such person
shall be given without giving him an opportunity of
being heard."
5) Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 shows that
the provisional list of voters needs to be prepared by the
society in the year in which the election of such society is
due to be held and the member who has completed
minimum two years as member from the date of his
7 WP 5594 of 2016
enrollment and who is active member shall be included in
the provisional list as laid down in sections 26 and 27 of
the Cooperative Societies Act. In view of other rules, it
can be said that the provisional voters list was supplied by
the society itself to the authority and then the returning
officer was to publish the provisional voters list. In
addition to that, material is produced by the present
petitioners like receipts of payment made to the society
for becoming the member and they show that they had
become member by making payment on 21-9-2012.
6) Respondent No.6, the person who had taken
objection, has produced some portion of the bye-laws.
There is objection that as per the bye-law No.6(3)
regarding the membership, for becoming a member the
person must be resident of the area attached to the
society or he should be holding an account in that area
and he ought to have possessed at least 10 R area of
agricultural land. Thus he needs to be agriculturist.
Objection was taken by respondent No.6 before the
returning officer that the petitioners are not agriculturists
as they did not own any agricultural land in village Ful-
8 WP 5594 of 2016
Pimpalgaon. He had produced certificates issued by the
Talathi in that regard. It appears that they were obtained
on 11-5-2016.
7) No order as such was made by the returning
officer for giving reasons for which the names of the
petitioners were deleted from the final list. It is not
disputed that
ig the petitioners were not given an
opportunity to have their say in respect of the objection.
In any case, in view of the provision of section 11 of the
Cooperative Societies Act quoted above it can be said that
such objection could have been considered and decided
only by the Registrar as mentioned in that section. This
section further shows that without giving opportunity to
such person of being heard, the order cannot be made
against such person. It is mandatory provision. In view of
this circumstance this Court holds that petitioners' names
could not have been deleted from the voters list by the
returning officer.
8) In view of the discussion made above, this
Court holds that the deletion of the names of the
9 WP 5594 of 2016
petitioners from the voters list cannot sustain in law and
so it needs to be set aside. The petitioners are entitled to
vote in the election as they were members of the society
and their names were not removed by the competent
authority from the voters list.
9) So, the petition is allowed. The deletion of the
names of the petitioners from the final voters list by the
returning officer is hereby set aside. Their names are to
be restored in the final voters list. The votes given by
them are to be counted and the result of the election is to
be declared. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
rsl
