Bombay High Court
Jalindar Tukaram Kharat vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 October, 2021
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally signed
by PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS RANE
VILAS Date:
RANE 2021.10.01
16:00:36
+0530
Pvr 1 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5890 of 2021
Shri.Jalindar Tukaram Kharat ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Maharashtra
2. State Co-operative Election Authority
3. District Co-operative Society Election
Officer
4. Satara District Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd.
5. Shri.Jaikumar Bhagwanrao Gore
6. Kailasvasi Gorakhnath Panipuravatha
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Varkute,
Malavadi, Taluka Man, Dist. Satara. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5891 of 2021
Jalindar Tukaram Kharat ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Maharashtra
2. State Co-operative Election Authority
3. District Co-operative Society Election Officer
4. Satara District Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd.
5. Shri.Jaikumar Bhagwanrao Gore
6. Kailasvasi Gorakhnath Panipuravatha
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Varkute,
Malavadi, Taluka Man, Dist. Satara. ... Respondents
----
Mr.Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Amol Gatne, for the Petitioner
in WP 5890/2021.
Mr.Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh, for the
Petitioner in WP 5891/2021.
Pvr 2 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
Mr.Dilip Bodake, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in WP 5890/2021 and
5891/2021.
Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the State in WP 5890/2021.
Ms.Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for the State in WP 5891/2021.
Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b. Mr.Aditya P. Shirke and Mr.Shivraj Patne, for
Respondent No.4 in WP 5890/2021 and WP 5891/2021.
Mr.Vijay Patil i/b. Mr.Siddharth R. Karpe, for Respondent no.5 in WP
5890/2021.
Mr.Vishwajeet Sawant i/b. Mr.Vishwajeet Mohite with Mr.Dipak Jadhav,
for Respondent No.5 in WP 5891/2021.
---
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.
RESERVED ON : 27 September 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 1 October 2021
JUDGMENT:
1. Both these petitions raise common questions of fact and law,
hence, are being decided by this common judgment.
2. At the stage of preparation of a provisional voters list for elections
to the managing committee of a federal society, whether the federal
society has any authority to decide on the legality of the membership of
a member nominated/appointed by its member society so as to not
include him in the provisional voters list, is the issue which falls for
consideration in these petitions. In the present case the federal society is
the Satara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for short 'the bank')-
respondent no.4 in both the petitions.
Pvr 3 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
3. The challenge in these two petitions is to two similar orders both
dated 20 September 2021 passed by the 'District Co-operative Society
Election Officer and the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative
Societies', Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur, arrayed as respondent no.3 (for
short 'the Election Officer'), who has held that the non- inclusion/
deletion of respondent no.5 in the first petition namely of Shri.Jaikumar
Bhagwanrao Gore being a nominee of respondent no.6-Kailasvasi
Gorakhnath Panipuravatha Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Varkute,
Malavadi, Taluka Man, District Satara, and the non-inclusion/deletion of
Respondent No.5, in the second writ petition namely of Shri.
Ranjeetsinha Hindurao Naik-Nimbalkar, nominee of Shri.Sant
Sawatamali Pani Puravatha Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Varkute,
Malavdi, Taluka-Man, District Satara, is an act of the federal society -the
bank without jurisdiction. By the impugned order, the Election Officer
has upheld the objections, raised by the said nominees of these primary
societies against the non-inclusion/deletion of their names from the
provisional voters list, as forwarded by the bank and published by the
Election Officer and has directed the inclusion of their names in the final
voters list.
4. The factual antecedents are required to be noted:
On 6 May 2020 the term of the erstwhile managing committee of
the bank came to an end. It needs to be noted that this was the period in
Pvr 4 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic which had engulfed our
country with effect from March,2021. Thus, immediately the process to
hold fresh elections could not be commenced and the same was
generally extended.
5. The Election Officer by his communication dated 11 February
2021 informed the 'District Co-operative Election Officers', of a
programme for preparation of voters list, for election to be held of the
District Central Co-operative Banks. Such programme was to commence
inter-alia on 15 February 2021 namely the date on which the District
Election Officer was to call for resolutions of the member societies,
nominating their members; the programme was supposed to end with
the preparation of the final voters list on 5 April 2021. Respondent no.6
societies in both these petitions, being the member societies of the bank,
by their letters dated 18 February 2021 addressed to the Election
Officer, forwarded their respective resolutions nominating their
members, namely Shri.Jaikumar Bhagwanrao Gore-respondent no.5 in
the first petition and Shri.Ranjeetsinha Hindurao Naik-Nimbalkar -
respondent no.5 in the second petition (for convenience collectively
referred as "respondent no.5") for inclusion of their names in the
provisional voters list. Along with such letters copies of the society's
resolutions and the other relevant documents were enclosed and
forwarded to the Election Officer. The election programme, however,
Pvr 5 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
was further deferred due to the pandemic. By a fresh notification dated
13 August 2021 a new programme for preparation of the final voters list
was notified by the State Co-operative Election Authority. The new
programme as notified is as under:-
Agenda to finalize the Draft Voters List for District Central Co-operative Bank
1 Forwarding of the Resolutions of Dt. 17.08.2021
representatives by the District Co-operative
Election Officer to the Bank
2 Date of presentation of the Draft voters list Dt. 25.08.2021
by the Bank to the District co-operative
Election Officer for publication.
3 Date of publication of the Draft Voters list by Dt. 03/09/2021
the District Co-operative Election Officer [By At 11 a.m.
Rule 11(1)]
4 Last date for submission of objections on the Dt. 13.09.2021
Draft Voters List to the District Co-operative During office hours
Election Officer [By Rule 11(2)]
5 Final date to give decision by the District Co- Dt. 22.09.2021
operative Election Officer, on the objections
submitted. [Rule 11(3)]
6 Date of publication of the final voters list by Dt. 27.09.2021
the District Co-operative Election Officer
[Rule 11(4)]
6. As pleaded in the petition, the petitioner has claimed to be a voter
of the bank, who says that prior to the declaration of the above
programme by the Election officer, he objected to the inclusion of
respondent no.5's name in the provisional voters list, by his letter dated
4 August 2021 (received by the bank on 14 August 2021), on the
ground that these respondents were not members of their respective
parent societies, hence, their nomination by the said societies, for
Pvr 6 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
inclusion of their names in the voters list itself was illegal. The
petitioner supported his case of non-inclusion of respondent no.5 on the
basis of certain documents which, according to him, would show that
respondent no.5 could not be a member of their respective parent
societies inter-alia for the reason that the Respondent No 5 did not have
any land in the operational area of their respective societies as also that
the resolution nominating them for inclusion in the voters list was bogus
as also for the reason that they were not members for their society for a
period of two years on the cut of date i.e. as on 6 May 2020.
7. On the very same day, the General Manager and the Deputy
Manager of the bank prepared an office note for consideration of the
Chief Executive Officer of the bank requesting, that they be permitted to
forward the petitioner's complaint to the Divisional Development
Officer's, of the respective regions of these primary societies of which
respondent no 5 were members, seeking information and providing a
report to the bank on the issues as raised in the Petitioner's complaint.
Such request was granted by the CEO of the bank, however, there is no
date below the signature as made by the CEO on the said note.
8. On 18 August 2021, the General Manager and the Deputy
Manager prepared a report, on the basis of the feed back they
purportedly received from the Divisional Development Officers on the
Pvr 7 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
petitioner's objection, to include names of respondent no.5 in the
provisional voters list being prepared, for the ensuing elections of the
managing committee of the bank for the period 2021-26. The report
refers to the information received by the bank from the Divisional
Development Officers who informed that both of these members
(respondent no.5) were not the members of their respective societies,
and hence, their names could not be included in the provisional voters
list as per the provisions of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (for short the "said
Rules"). The General Manager and the Deputy Manager accordingly
sought an approval of the managing committee, not to include the
names of respondent no.5 in preparation of the provisional voters list,
and to add their names in the list of non eligible representatives of the
member societies. Such request was approved by the Chief Executive
Officer. By such ex-parte procedure adopted by the bank, the names of
Respondent no. 5 were sought to be non-included and or omitted from
the provisional voters list.
9. On 3 September 2021, a provisional voters list was published by
the Election Officer with a note that the last date for receiving objections
to the said provisional voters list would be 13 September 2021.
Respondent no.5 raised objections to the provisional voters list by their
respective applications dated 13 September 2021, contending that they
Pvr 8 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
were appropriately nominated by their respective societies (Respondent
No. 6 Societies) and that the bank had no authority under Rule 10 of the
said Rules to come to any conclusion that they were not the members of
their own society. Such objection of respondent no.5 was also replied by
the bank by its letter dated 15 September 2021, by which the bank
inter-alia reiterated the reasons as to why respondent no.5 was not
qualified to be nominated as they were not the members of the
respective societies and/or the documents produced by them were
bogus. Such reply, however conspicuously did not refer to any complaint
as made by the petitioner, on the basis of which such ex-parte inquiry
was undertaken as also information obtained by the bank from the
Divisional Development Officers. Also in the documents as placed for
consideration of the Election Officer in support of such opposition, the
bank did not submit the said report dated 18 August 2021 of the
General Manager and the Deputy Manager, on the basis of which the
bank had decided that respondent no.5 could not claim membership of
their respective societies. By a detailed impugned order dated 20
September 2021, the Election Officer has upheld the objections raised by
respondent no.5. Considering the rival contentions, the Election Officer
has held that the respective societies of respondent no.5 had passed
resolutions nominating respondent no.5 for their respective inclusion in
the provisional voters list. He observed that despite such nomination,
Pvr 9 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
the bank had undertaken an exercise to delete the names of respondent
no.5 from the provisional voters list which according to him was without
jurisdiction. He also held that even he would not have such jurisdiction
in the capacity of an Election Officer to adjudicate on issues of
membership inter-se between respondent no.5 and their respective
societies. Accordingly, the Election Officer accepting the objections as
raised by respondent no.5 to the omission and/or non-inclusion of their
names from the provisional voters list, by the impugned order directed
that the names of respondent no.5 be included in the final voters list,
which is being challenged by the petitioner in these petitions.
10. On behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 namely the State Co-
operative Election Authority and the District Co-operative Society
Election Officer reply affidavits are filed in both the petitions.
Respondent no.3 has stated that the bank had no authority, not to
include the name of any delegates / representatives of the member
societies of the bank, on a pretext that such authorised representative
were not the members of the parent society. It is stated that the decision
of the bank was not in consonance with the Rules. It is stated that Rule
9(1) of the Rules provided that a provisional list of voters should be
prepared by every society in the year in which the elections of such
society were due to be held, and as per Rule 9 of the Rules the bank had
no authority to delete the names of respondent no.5.
Pvr 10 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
11. Also on behalf of respondent no.5 a reply affidavit has been filed
in the first writ petition, supporting the impugned order. Respondent no.
5 has denied the documents being referred by the bank to put up a case
against respondent no.5 to allege that respondent no.5 was not the
member of his parent society. It is contended that at no point of time,
the alleged complaint of the petitioner dated 4 August 2021 or the
documents in that regard were placed before the Election Officer.
Respondent No. 5 says that the case of the petitioner as asserted in the
petition was wholly concocted and which was also not a case before the
Election Officer. It is contended that the bank could not have exercised
any suo motu jurisdiction to delete respondent no.5's name from the
provisional voters list nor the letter dated 16 February 2021 of the
Election Officer calling upon the Chief Executive Officer of the bank to
undertake preparation of provisional voters list would confer any such
jurisdiction. It is contended that such decision of the bank was patently
illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 of the said Rules. It is
further contended that sub-section (7) of Section 27 of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act"") provided that in
case of a federal society, the voting rights of individual members thereof
shall be such as may be regulated by the rules made under the Act and
by the bye-laws of the society. It is next contended that the decision of
respondent no.4-bank to delete his name has been rightly set aside by
Pvr 11 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
the Election Officer on the ground that the bank had no jurisdiction to
delete the name of respondent no.5 as seen from the reading of Rules
8 to 11 read with Section 27 of the Act. According to respondent no.5
such jurisdiction also cannot be presumed by the bank under the said
provisions. It is contended that the conduct of the petitioner and the
officials of the bank were suspicious and an inquiry was required to be
initiated for false and fabricated documents being annexed to the
petition. It is accordingly, contended that the writ petitions be dismissed.
12. Mr.Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
in assailing the impugned order passed by the Election officer would
submit that the Election Officer has patently erred in law in overlooking
the provisions of Rule 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules alongwith the provisions
of Section 27 of the Act, as according to him a cumulative reading of
these provisions clearly indicate that the bank would not merely be
acting as a post office to consider nominations as made by its member
societies, so as to include members of such societies who are not eligible
to be nominated for inclusion in the provisional voters list. According
to him, such provisions obligate the bank to undertake such inquiry and
weed out the member which are ineligible.
13. Mr. Anturkar submits that it was incumbent under the provisions
of the said rules for the bank to undertake necessary scrutiny as to
Pvr 12 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
whether a person who has been nominated by the member society for
inclusion in the provisional voters list is an eligible person. It is his
contention that such exercise is implicit in Rule 10(2) of the said Rules.
14. Mr. Anturkar has submitted that the material on record which
was revealed from the inquiry undertaken by it in pursuance of the
complaint of the petitioner, was sufficient to indicate that respondent
no.5 were not the members of their respective parent societies. It is his
submission that if such material was to the knowledge of the bank, it
could not have discarded such material to nonetheless include
respondent no.5 in the provisional list of the voters. In support of his
submission, Mr.Anturkar has placed reliance on the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Ambadasrao Varpudkar vs.
District Co-operative Election Officer @ Divisional Joint Registrar,
Aurangabad.1 to contend that the election officer did not have any
jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
15. Mr.Godbole, learned Counsel for the bank has supported the
contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioners. He has drawn the
Court's attention to various documents on record to contend that the
documents which were available with the bank would show that
respondent no.5 were not the members of their parent societies. It is
1 Writ Petition No. 3454 OF 2015, decided on 27/3/2015
Pvr 13 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
submitted that even assuming that they were the members, they had
not completed statutory period of being members for a period of two
years prior to the cut off date. It is his submission that such material
could not have been discarded by the bank and the bank could not have
acted as a mere spectator, so as to place respondent no.5 in the
provisional voters list. It is also his submission that Rules 9, 10 and 11
of the Rules certainly would cast an obligation on the bank to verify that
an appropriate person is included in the voters list as nominated by the
member society. It is his submission that the bank rightly disbelieved the
resolution passed by the parent society of respondent no.5 in
nominating respondent no.5 to be included in the provisional voters list,
in exercise of such powers of scrutiny/ verification. Mr.Godbole submits
that there was abundant material as pointed out from the audit report
of the societies as also from the resolutions of these societies to
conclude that respondent no.5 were not lawful members of their
respective societies. It is submitted that if the impugned order is upheld,
the same would nullify Section 27 of the Act as also it would be
contrary to the spirit of Rules 9 to 11 of the said Rules. It is also his
submission that in view of the material before the Court, the Court can
mould the relief and direct an inquiry to be undertaken by the Registrar
under Section 11 of the Act as there was sufficient reason to indicate
from the documents on record that neither of them (respondent no.5)
Pvr 14 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
were having anything to do within the jurisdiction of their respective
parent societies, when the societies were lift irrigation societies.
Mr.Godbole would, hence, submit that the petitions deserve to be
allowed.
16. Per contra, Mr.Patil learned counsel for respondent no.5 in the
first petition and Mr.Sawant, learned senior counsel for respondent no.5
in the second petition in supporting the impugned order at the outset
would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain these
petitions. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not approached this
Court with clean hands as the documents which are annexed to the
petition which were never before the Election Officer, when he passed
the impugned order. It is their submission that the petitions deserved to
be dismissed on this ground alone. It is next submitted that the bank did
not have any jurisdiction to decide a question of their clients'
membership of their parent societies. It is submitted that the provisions
of the Election Rules can never be employed to undertake any such
inquiry much less the provisions of Rules 9 to 11. It is submitted that
the election officer has rightly held that such action on behalf of the
bank being wholly without jurisdiction. According to them, in any case,
such an action on the part of the bank was unilateral and ex-parte to
their clients that too on the basis of false material which was never put
to their clients before a decision was taken by the bank to delete the
Pvr 15 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
names of their clients from the provisional list. It is their submission
that valid resolutions passed by their parent societies, nominating their
clients as the representatives of such societies for including their names
in the provisional voters list could not have been nullified, purportedly
under the garb of any verification, scrutiny or inquiry by the bank. It is
submitted that such action has rendered ineffective not only the
resolution passed by their parent societies nominating their members,
but also has taken away the valuable right of their clients to represent
their own society when validly nominated. It is their submission that
such action as resorted by the bank was politically motivated for the
reasons that the bank intention was to keep away their clients from the
ensuing elections. It is also their submission that the entire story in the
petitions is concocted. As also, the so called complaint of the petitioner
dated 4th August 2021 was born only for the purposes of the present
proceedings and which was never the record before the election officer.
It is their submission that the petitioner's alleged complaint dated 4
August 2021, on the basis of which an ex-parte inquiry was conducted
by the bank and the documents of alleged report dated 18 August 2021,
are manufactured only for the purpose of the present proceedings. It is
submitted that the illegality of the procedure adopted by the bank to
remove/omit their clients name was writ large, inasmuch as, no notice
was issued to their clients nor to their respective societies, before such
Pvr 16 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
action could be taken. According to them, it was a dubious action on
the part of the bank to omit the names of their clients from the
provisional voters list. It is their contention that in these circumstances
their clients rightly agitated the issue of inclusion of their names before
the Election Officer, after publication of the provisional voters list and
such objection has been rightly and lawfully accepted and upheld by the
Election officer by the impugned order. It is next submitted that the bank
had no authority to take any such action which would deny
representation to the parent societies of their clients. It is submitted that
the whole intention of the bank was to usurp the powers of the election
officer, so that their clients are not included in the voters list. It is
submitted that the bank could not have undertaken any exercise of this
nature, which the election officer himself could not have undertaken. It
is thus submitted that the bank had resorted to a patent illegality and
had acted in breach of the principles of natural justice, as the bank had
adopted the role of prosecutor as also of an adjudicator in not including
the names of their clients. According to them, in any case the inquiry
undertaken by the bank was a bogus inquiry. It is submitted that also the
petitioner is a sham and bogus person who has been put up at the
behest of the bank. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in "Shriram Ganpatrao Yawale Vs. Resident Deputy Collector,
Amravati & Ors"2, it is submitted that that right to vote is to be
2 2007(3) ALL MR 125
Pvr 17 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
construed in the light of the provisions of Section 27(3) of the Act and
the parent society is entitled to appoint one of its members to vote on its
behalf, and that there was nothing in the language of Section 27(3) of
the Act to hold that a member who is not eligible for voting in the affairs
of the primary society, cannot be held as representative of the federal
society. In supporting their other submissions Mr. Patil and Mr. Sawant
have placed reliance on the decisions in (i) Eknath Ashiram Alekar v/s.
State of Maharashtra & others3; (ii) Akkatai Shamagonda Patil v/s.
District Election Officer4; and (iii) Shriram Ganpatrao Yewle v/s. Dept.
Collector and Ors.5
17. Mr.Dilip Bodke, learned Counsel appearing for the State Co-
operative Election Authority and the District Co-operative Society
Election Officer (respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively) in supporting the
impugned orders has referred to the reply affidavit which has already
referred in the aforesaid paragraphs. It is his submission that the
petitions deserve to be dismissed as the election officer has appropriately
and in accordance with law passed the impugned orders.
Reasons and conclusion
18. On the above backdrop, it would be required to be examined
'whether the bank had any authority under the provisions of Rules 9 to
3 1989 (3) BCR 165
4 Writ Petition No.9798 of 2015 decided on 30/10/20215
5 2007 (Suppl 1) BCR 832
Pvr 18 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
11 read with Section 27 of the Act', not to include the names of
respondent No. 5 in the provisional voters list.
19. To appreciate the issues, at the outset the relevant statutory
provisions are required to be noted which reads thus:-
"Provisions under the Act
Section 2(a-1) "active member" means a member who participates in
the affairs of the society and utilises the minimum level of services or
product of that society as may be specified in the bye-law.
27. Voting powers of members. - [(1) Save as otherwise
provided in sub-section (2) to (7), both inclusive, no member of
any society shall have more than one vote in its affairs; and every
right to vote shall be exercised personally and not by proxy:
Provided that, in the case of an equality of votes the
Chairman shall have a casting vote;]
[(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), an active member who subsequently fails to participate in the
affairs of the society and to use the services upto the minimum
level as specified, from time to time, in the by-laws, shall cease to
be an active member and shall not be entitled to vote.]
(2) Where a share of a society is held jointly by more
than one person, [the person whose name stands first in the share
certificate, if present, shall have the right to vote. But in his
absence the person whose name stands second, and in the
absence of both, the person whose name stands next, and
likewise, in the absence of the preceding persons the person
whose name is next on the share certificate, who is present and
who is not a minor, shall have the right to vote.]
[(3) A society which has invested any part of its funds in
the shares of any federal society, may appoint one of its [active]
members to vote on its behalf in the affairs of that federal society;
and accordingly such member shall have the right to vote on
behalf of the society:
Provided that, any new member society of a federal society
shall be eligible to vote in the affairs of that federal society only
after the completion of the period of three years from the date of
its investing any part of its fund in the shares of such federal
society:
[* * *]
Pvr 19 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
(3A) An individual member of a society shall not be
eligible for voting in the affairs of that society for a period of two
years from the date of his enrollment as a member of such
society.]:
[Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall apply in
respect of a co-operative housing society and a co-operative
premises society.]
(4) A company or any other body corporate constituted
under any law for the time being in force which has invested any
part of its funds in the shares of a society may appoint any one of
its directors or officers to vote on its behalf in the affairs of such
society; and accordingly such director or officer shall-have the
right to vote on behalf of the company or body corporate.
(5) Where a firm has invested any part of its funds in
the shares of a society, any one of its partners [appointed by the
firm] shall be entitled to vote in the affairs of the society on
behalf of the firm.
(6) A local authority or public trust which has invested
any part of its funds in the shares of a society, may appoint any of
its members or trustees, to vote on its behalf in the affairs of that
society; and accordingly such persons shall have the right to vote
on behalf of the local authority or the public trust, as the case
may be.
(7) In the case of a federal society, the voting rights of
individual members thereof shall be such as may be regulated by
the rules made under this Act and by the bye-laws of the society.
(8) No nominal [* *] [* *] member shall have the right
to vote [and no such member shall be eligible to be a member of
a committee or for appointment as a representative of the society
on any other society].
[(9) No nominee of the Government or of any financing
bank on the committee of any society shall be entitled to vote at
any election of officers of such committee such as, the President,
Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or
any other officer by whatsoever designation called, who holds the
office by virtue of his election to that office.]
[(10) [If a member has taken a loan from the society, such
member shall, whenever he is a defaulter, as provided in the
Explanation to clause (i) of subsection (1) of section 73CA have
no right to vote in the affairs of the society]:
Provided that, a member shall not be deemed to be a
defaulter if he has discharged his obligation to deliver his
marketable produce to the marketing or processing society and
the value of such produce is not less than the amount of his dues,
Pvr 20 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
even if the actual settlement of his dues, either in whole or in
part, takes place at a later stage.
(11) The agricultural credit society may issue suitable
orders for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of sub-
section (10).]
Provisions Under the Rules
Rule 9:- Provisional list of voters for the societies having society
or society and individuals as members
(1) A provisional list of voters shall be prepared by every
society in the year in which the elections of such society are due to be
held. The active members who have completed minimum two years as
members from the date of their enrollment [up to the date of expiry of
terms of existing managing committee] and in case of society being a
active member who has completed minimum three years from the date
of enrollment [to], the date of expiry of period of existing managing
committee; shall be included in the provisional list as laid down in
section 27. If different constituencies are provided in the bye-laws, the
names of voters shall be arranged consistency-wise as laid down in the
bye-laws.
(2) The period of three years provided in sub-section (3) of
section 27 of the Act is to be counted from the date of enrollment of
member to the date when election of the managing committee of the
society becomes due;
Provided that, in case of societies where the elections could not
be held before the expiry of the term of the committee due to
unforeseen conditions or any other reason, provisional list of the voter
shall be prepared on the basis of the date fixed by the SCEA;
Provided further that, provisional list of voters of the society
having its first elections due after term of expiry of the provisional
committee under section 73(1A)(a) shall comprise of all the members
as on the date of election when due:
Provided also that, the provisional list of the voters of the
society on which an authorized officer is appointed under section 77A
or an administrator is appointed under section 78A shall be prepared
on the basis of the date fixed by the SCEA.
(3) Four copies of the authenticated provisional lists of
voters shall be delivered in print as well as preferably in digital form by
the committee of the society to the District Co-operative Election
Officer or Taluka or Ward Co-operative Election Officer, or as directed
by the SCEA one hundred and twenty days before the date of expiry of
the term of committee. Copies of such lists be displayed on the notice
board of the society. The District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka
or Ward Co-operative Election Officer shall, within ten days from its
receipt, call for inviting claims and objections from the members of the
society.
(4) If any committee fails to deliver copies of the provisional
list of voters to the election officer before the due date, the District Co-
operative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward Co-operative Election
Officer shall himself or through any person authorized by him in this
Pvr 21 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
behalf, prepare such provisional list of voters and the expenditure
incurred therefor shall be recovered from the committee responsible
therefor, as arrears of land revenue.
(5) In the event of the District Co-operative Election Officer
or Taluka or Ward Co-operative Election Officer taking action under
the last preceding sub-rule, he shall also cause copies of the provisional
list of voters to be displayed on his notice board and on the notice
board of the District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward
Co-operative Election Officer and of the society within 10 days from
the date of receipt of such list from the society for inviting claims and
objections from the members of the society;
Provided that, such list may be published on the official website
of SCEA and the Co-operation Department.
Rule 10:- Particulars to be included in the provisional list of voters
for the societies having society or society and individuals as members
(1) The provisional list of voter in case of individual
members shall contain the surname, name, father's or husband's name,
age gender (in alphabetical order), if any, with address recorded in the
register of members in Form 'E-3' of every person entitled to be
registered as voter with such other particulars as may be necessary to
identify him.
(2) Where a society or firm is the member of Society, the
District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward Co-operative
Election Officer shall publish a date for calling the name of
representative, one hundred and fifty days prior to the date of expiry of
term of office of the Committee. And such society shall send the name
of representative duly authorized to vote at the election on behalf of
the society or firm, so as to reach it to the office of the District Co-
operative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward Co-operative Election
Officer at least one hundred and twenty days prior to the date of expiry
of term of office of the Committee. The representative authorized by
the member society shall be an active member of the member society.
(3) While communicating the name of the representative to
the society the affiliated society shall enclose a copy of the resolution of
the annual general body meeting of the society or its committee where
the representative is so authorized. The society shall include in the list
of voters the names of all such representatives as have been
communicated to it before the date fixed for publication of the
provisional list of voters by the District Co-operative Election Officer or
Taluka or Ward Co-operative Election Officer, the list shall contain the
name of the affiliated societies, their registration numbers and addresses
[and the name of representative if any].
(4) A society which has communicated the name of its
representative shall, by like resolution, be permitted to change the name
of its representative only in case of death of the representative or where
there is newly elected committee of the member society not later than
five days before the last date of making nominations.
Rule 11. Claims and objections to the provisional list of voters and
the final list of voters for the societies having society or societies and
individuals as members. - (1) When any provisional list of voters is
Pvr 22 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
published for inviting claims and objections, any omission or error in
respect of name or address of other particulars in the list may be brought
to the notice of the District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or
Ward Co-operative Election Officer in writing by any member of the
society concerned who is a voter or any representative authorized to vote
on behalf of such society during office hours within ten days from the
date of publication of the provisional list of voters.
(2) Any member of the society concerned making a claim or
raising objection shall do so by a separate petition, which shall be
presented to the District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward
Co-operative Election Officer during office hours, before the last date
published for inviting claims and objections. Such claims or objections
shall be preferred in writing and state the grounds on which the claim is
based or the objection is raised, as the case may be.
(3) The District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or
Ward Co-operative Election Officer shall, after making such enquiries as
deemed necessary in this regard, consider each claim or objection, and
give his decision thereon in writing to the persons concerned within ten
days from the last date prescribed for receiving the claims and
objections and final voters list should be published within the period of
fifteen days from the last date prescribed for receiving the claims and
objections. The list as finalized by the District Co-operative Election
Officer or Taluka or Ward Co-operative Election Officer after deciding all
claims and objection shall be final list of voters.
(4) The copies of the final list of voters shall be displayed on
the notice board of the District Co-operative Election Officer and also on
the notice board of the society at least ten days before the declaration of
the election programme and in no case later than fifteen days from the
finalization of claims and objections. The District Co-operative Election
Officer may also cause it to be published on the official website of the
SCEA, if any.
(5) If any change in the final voters list in accordance with
sub-rule (4) of rule 10 is required, the District Co-operative Election
Officer or the person authorized by him, after making such inquiry as he
deems fit, make necessary changes in the final voter list."
20. It is thus seen that Section 27 provides for voting powers of
members. Sub-section (1A) of Section 27 provides that notwithstanding
anything contained in sub section (1), if an active member subsequently
fails to participate in the office of the society and to use the services up
to the minimum level as specified, from time to time, in the by-laws,
shall cease to be an active member and shall not be entitled to vote.
Pvr 23 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
21. It needs to be noted that by Maharashtra Act no 30 of 2020 the
following proviso came to be inserted below sub-section (1A) :
"Provided that, the provisions of this sub-section shall not be
applicable ,-
(a) in respect of elections of societies to be conducted on or
before the 31st March 2021; and
(b) where voters list for conducting the elections has been
finalized prior to the commencement of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies (Fourth Amendment) Act,2020"
Thereafter by Maharashtra Act No. 11 of 2021 the above proviso as
inserted by the 2020 amendment came to be deleted and was
substituted by the following proviso :-
"Provided that, the provision of this sub-section shall not be
applicable in respect of elections of societies to be conducted on
or before the 31st March 2022."
By virtue of the amendments to sub-section (1A) of section 27 the
stipulation that an 'active member' would cease to be an active member,
so as to make him disentitled to vote in the circumstances as provided in
subsection (1A), were initially not to be applied, in respect of elections
firstly to be conducted on or before 31 March 2021 (later on deleted)
and secondly by virtue of the Second Amendment (supra) in respect of
elections of society to be conducted on or before 31 March 2022.
22. Sub-section (3 ) of Section 27 which is of relevance provides that
the society which has invested any part of its funds in the shares of any
federal society, may appoint one of its active members to vote on its
Pvr 24 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
behalf in the affairs of that federal society and accordingly such member
shall have the right to vote on behalf of the society. The word 'active as
appearing in the said sub-section was incorporated by an Amendment
Act 16 of 2013 with effect from 14 February 2013. The proviso below
sub-section (3) ordains that any new member society of a federal society
shall be eligible to vote in the affairs of the federal society only after the
completion of the period of 3 years from the date of its investing any
part of its funds in the shares of such federal society. Sub-section (3A)
provides that an individual member of the society shall not be eligible
for voting in the affairs of that society for a period of 2 years from the
date of enrollment as a member of such society. Proviso below sub-
section (3A) ordains that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in
respect of a co-operative housing society and a co-operative premises
society.
23. Thus, in the context of the present proceedings the relevant
provision is sub-section (3) of Section 27 which concerns a society which
has invested any part of its funds in the shares of any federal society,
who may appoint one of its active members to vote on its behalf in the
affairs of the federal society, as in the present case on such appointment
being made by the member society, the member so appointed shall have
the right to vote on behalf of the society. In the present case respondent
No. 5 falls within sub-section (3) as respondent No. 5 was nominated by
Pvr 25 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
his society which is a member society of the bank to participate in the
elections of the federal society. There is an apparent distinction between
the provisions of sub-section (3) and provisions of sub-section (3A)
inasmuch as sub-section (3) clearly provides for ' participation of one
society which has invested funds in the shares of a federal society to
vote on behalf of such society in the affairs of the federal society';
whereas subsection (3A) provides that ' an individual member of a
society shall not be eligible for voting in the affairs of the society of
which he is a member, for a period of 2 years from the date of his
enrollment as a member of such society"; Considering the implications of
sub-section (3) and (3A) of Section 27 of the Act and its applicability to
the facts of the present case, there does not appear to be any role
attributed under Section 27 to the federal society to undertake any
scrutiny and/or verification on the decision of its member society in
appointing its member as provided for in sub-section (3) to vote in the
affairs of the federal society namely the bank in the present case. To
read into such provision, any role of the federal society to scrutinize or
verify or sit in appeal over any decision of the member society would
amount to reading something in the provision which the legislature itself
has not provided for. It is therefore difficult to accept Mr.Anturkar's and
Mr.Godbole's submission that Section 27 recognizes a role of the federal
society to re-verify the appointment / nomination made by a member
Pvr 26 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
society in exercising its right to vote in the affairs of a federal society.
Also per se sub-section (3) of Section 27 does not provide for any
requirement of a minimum two years of membership as on the cut of
date. Thus reading such embargo into the said provision would amount
to making an addition not intended by the legislature. In any event
substantive provisions of law cannot be controlled by any executive
instruction or any subordinate legislation.
24. Now coming to the provisions of the Rules. Rule 9 provides for
preparation of provisional list of voters for the societies having society or
societies and individuals as members. Rule 9 provides that a provisional
list of voters should be prepared by every society in the year in which
the elections of such society are due to be held. It provides that the
active members who have completed minimum two years as members
from the date of their enrollment up to the date of expiry of the term of
the existing managing committee, and in case of society being a active
member who has completed minimum three years from the date of
enrollment to the date of expiry of period of the existing managing
committee, shall be included in the provisional list as laid down in
section 27 of the Act. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 provides that four copies of
the authenticated provisional lists of voters should be delivered in print
as well as preferably in digital form by the committee of the society
interalia to the District Co-operative Election Officer and copies of such
Pvr 27 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
lists be displayed on the notice board of the society. The Election Officer
thereafter, within ten days from receipt of such lists, shall invite claims
and objections from the members of the society.
25. Rule 10 provides for particulars to be included in the provisional
list of voters for the societies having societies or society and individuals
as members. On behalf of the petitioners submissions are made on the
provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10, hence, this sub-rule is required to
be discussed. Sub-rule (2) interalia provides that where a society or firm
is the member of Society, the District Co-operative Election Officer shall
publish a date for calling the name of the representative, 150 days prior
to the date of expiry of the term of the office of the Committee, and such
society shall send the name of the representative duly authorized to vote
at the election on behalf of the society or firm, so as to reach the office
of the District Co-operative Election Officer or other officers as specified,
at least 120 days prior to the date of expiry of term of office of the
Committee. It further provides that the representative authorized by the
member society shall be an active member of the member society. Sub-
rule (3) of Rule 10 provides that while communicating the name of the
representative to the society, the affiliated society shall enclose a copy of
the resolution of the annual general body meeting of the society or its
committee, where the representative is so authorized. It is provided that
the society shall include in the list of voters the names of all such
Pvr 28 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
representatives as have been communicated to it before the date fixed
for publication of the provisional list of voters by the District Co-
operative Election Officer or the other named officer. On a cumulative
reading of sub-rule (2) and (3) of Rule 10 it is quite apparent that it is
an obligation of the society to forward directly to the election officer the
names of its members who would represent the society to be included
in the draft voters list. In fact sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 keeps an option
open to the society which has communicated the name of its
representative to change the name of its representative in the
circumstances as specified therein. It is thus more than clear from a
reading of Rule 10 along with its sub-rules that there is no role
whatsoever of the federal society like the bank to have any scrutiny of
the nominations as made by its member societies for inclusion of their
nominees in the provisional voters list. The wordings in the penultimate
and the last line of the sub-rule (2) when it says that the ' representative
authorised by the member society shall be an active member of the
member society' cannot be read to be of a consequence which would
give any foothold to the federal society to embark on an enquiry, or
undertake a verification or scrutiny, to find out whether the person so
nominated is an active member of his parent society. To read any such
enquiry by the federal society, as urged on behalf of the petitioners
would run contrary to the whole mechanism as provided for in Rule 10,
Pvr 29 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
apart from doing violence to the plain language and purport of the said
Rule.
26. Moreover a combined effect of Rule 9 and Rule 10 brings about an
intriguing position on the fairness of the process to include members in
the provisional voters list. At the outset it can be seen from the very title
of the rule that it provides for 'provisional list of voters for the societies
having society or society and individuals as members.' The rule hence
would be required to be read in the application not only to a society as a
member but also to an individual member when read carefully. On one
hand Rule 9(1) provides for provisional voters list to be prepared by
every society in the year in which elections of such society are due to be
held. In saying so, it further provides that the active members who have
completed minimum two years as members from the date of their
enrollment, upto the date of expiry of the term of the existing managing
committee; and in case of society being an active member who has
completed minimum three years from the date of, to the date of expiry
of the period of the existing managing committee; shall be included in
the provisional list as laid down in Section 27. Sub-rule (3) provides that
copies of the authenticated provisional lists of voters shall be delivered
to the District Election Officer one hundred twenty days before the
expiry of the term of the committee. Thus, what Rule 9 provides is what
Pvr 30 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
a society in the normal course would be doing in a year in which
elections of such society are due to be held.
27. On the other hand, Rule 10 however makes a departure from
what Rule 9 provides inasmuch as Rule 10(2) casts an obligation on the
member societies of a society. It provides that where a society or a firm
is the member of society, the District Co-operative Election Officer shall
publish a date for calling the name of representative, one hundred and
fifty days prior to the date of expiry of term of the office of the
committee. It provides that such society shall send the name of the
representative duly authorised to vote at the election on behalf of the
society or firm, so as to reach it to the office of the said election officer
at least one hundred and twenty days prior to the date of expiry of the
term of office of the committee. It also provides that the representative
authorised by the member society shall be an active member of the
society. It is vital to note as to what is provided for in sub-rule (3) which
provides that while communicating the name of the representative to
the society, the affiliated society shall enclose a copy of the resolution of
the annual general meeting of the society or its committee where the
representative is so authorised. It further casts an obligation on the
society when the sub-rule provides that "the society includes in the list
of voters the names of all such representatives as have been
communicated to it before the date fixed for publication of provisional
Pvr 31 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
list of voters, by the election officer ......". Further by virtue of sub-rule
(4) the society is permitted to change the name of its representative in
the circumstances as provided. A reading of Rule 10 depicts the vital
mechanism and the process by which a member society would
participate and gain representation in the election by directly forwarding
to the election officer the names of the representative being authorised
by such society alongwith the resolutions of the society. Thus on a
harmonious reading of Rules 9 and 10, there is hardly any scope to
accept a proposition that the federal society, namely the bank in the
present case, can at all interfere in the decision taken by the member
society by its resolution to nominate or authorise a particular member to
be included in the voters list.
28. In so far as Rule 11 is concerned, it provides for claims and
objections to the provisional list of voters and the final list of voters for
the societies having society or societies and individuals as members.
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 provides that when any provisional list of voters
is published for inviting claims and objections, any omission or error in
respect of name or address of other particulars in the list may be
brought to the notice of the District Co-operative Election Officer or
other named officer in writing by any member of the society concerned,
who is a voter or any representative authorized to vote on behalf of such
society within ten days from the date of publication of the provisional
Pvr 32 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
list of voters. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 confers authority on the Election
Officer that after making such enquiries as deemed necessary in this
regard, consider each claim or objection, and give his decision thereon
in writing to the persons concerned within ten days from the last date
prescribed for receiving the claims and objections and final voters list to
be published within the period of 15 days from the last date prescribed
for receiving the claims and objections.
29. It is such action as taken under Rule 11 is the subject matter of
the present proceedings, as the objection which was raised by
respondent no.5 before the Election Officer, has been decided by him by
the impugned order. Thus, even in regard to the applicability of Rule 11,
it is the sole jurisdiction of the Election Officer. A plain reading of sub-
rule (1) and (2) of Rule 11 also would not indicate any role of scrutiny
or enquiry vested in a federal society when the Election officer is
exercising jurisdiction to decide any claim, objection or an omission
from the provisional voters list. In any event, this is a case where the
bank contrary to the provisions of Rule 9 and 10 had taken upon itself to
undertake a scrutiny of the nomination of respondent no. 5 as
forwarded by their respective societies and had deleted and or not
included respondent no.5 in the provisional voters list.
Pvr 33 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
30. Having analysed and discussed the effect and operation of Section
27 read with Rule 9, 10 and 11 of the said Rules, it is quite certain to
me, that once the member society of a federal society has nominated its
member to be included in the provisional voters list, the federal society
would not have any authority or jurisdiction under the said provisions to
omit and/or not include the nomination and/or appointment of a
member made by a member society. In the absence of any such authority
in law, it is difficult to ascertain, as to how the bank assumed
jurisdiction to delete the inclusion of respondent no.5. It is clear that the
bank assumed unto itself such jurisdiction, although not conferred by
law, rendering its action of non-inclusion of respondent no.5 in the
provisional voters list, being patently illegal. Accordingly, it has been
rightly interfered by the Election Officer in passing the impugned order
and by directing inclusion of respondent no.5 in the final voters list. In
my opinion, there can be no other interpretation of the cumulative
reading of Section 27 and Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the said Rules. For these
reasons, it is difficult to accept any of the submissions as urged by
Mr.Anturkar and Mr.Godbole as noted above, in their attempt to assail
the impugned order passed by the Election Officer.
31. Now coming to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
Suresh Ambadasrao Varpudkar (supra) on which reliance is placed by
Mr. Anturkar, in my opinion such reliance is not well founded. In the
Pvr 34 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
said case the District Co-operative Election Officer had directed deletion
of the name of the petitioner from the final list of the voters, sustaining
objection as raised by respondent nos.3 and 4 in the said case on the
ground that the place of residence of the petitioner fell outside the area
of operation of the society. It is in this context, the Division Bench had
considered Rule 11 of the said Rule and the law in that regard as laid
down in "Dhondiba Parshuram Lokade and others Vs. Someshwar
Sahakari Sakhar karkhana Ltd and others6, "Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate
and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 7", as also in "Karbhari Maruti
Agawan and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 8" to hold that the
election officer would not have any jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry
as to whether the nominee delegate of a co-operative society was the
resident of a particular area or not and /or whether the said village fell
within the area of operation of primary society or not as such issue fell
outside the jurisdiction of the District Co-operative Election Officer. It
was held that these are matters on which the inquiry can be undertaken
under Section 11 of the Act which conferred powers on the Registrar.
32. On the other hand Mr. Patil's reliance on the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in Eknath Ashiram Alekar & others versus
State of Maharashtra & others (supra) is of relevance. In such decision
considering similar provisions although under the Maharashtra Specified
6 1979(0) BCI 43
7 1997(Supp.) Bom.C.R.203
8 1994 Mh.L.J. 1527
Pvr 35 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
Co-operative Societies (Election to Committees) Rules, 1971 namely
Rules 4 and 6 of such Rules, the Division Bench observed that the
question of challenge to membership of the persons, who are already
included in the list of voters, is not at all covered by the provisions of
Sub-Rule (5) or Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 of the 1971 Rules. The question
before the Court was in regard to the inclusion of names of 3,387
persons and the list of voters which was being objected on various
grounds including a ground that they were not operating in the area of
the sugar factory in question.
33. In so far as Mr.Patil's reliance on the decision of Eknath Ashiram
Alekar (supra) is concerned, the Court in a similar context referred to
the decision in Dhondiba Parshuram Lakade and others v. Someshwar
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and others 9 wherein while considering
the provisions of the 1971 rules, regarding the election to specified co
operative society viz. the sugar factory, the Court held that the Collector
cannot under Rule 6(1) embark on an enquiry into the entitlement to
membership of persons shown in register of members. The Court held
that it cannot be said that the question of membership of the persons
shown in the register of the sugar factory was open to challenge before
the Collector in an enquiry into the validity of the electoral roll under
Rule 6(1) of the 1971 Rules. The position in the present case is not too
9 1979 Mh.L.J. 311
Pvr 36 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
different. If contention as urged by Mr. Anturkar and Mr. Godbole is
accepted, the effect would be to sustain an enquiry and interference in
the provisional voters list as held by the bank, which would be in the
teeth of the provisions of Section 27 and the scheme of rules 9, 10 and
11 of the Rules.
34. In Akkatai Shamagonda Patil v/s. District Election Officers (supra)
the learned Single Judge was considering a challenge to an order passed
by the Election Officer rejecting the written objection to the inclusion of
90 voters in the voters list. The petitioners had contended that such
persons were not eligible to vote in the election of the managing
committee of the co-operative society on several grounds including the
ground that residence of these persons was outside the operational
jurisdiction of the society, there was also a ground that the minimum
holding of such persons was not as per the requirement of the society.
The Court examining the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules,
held that such jurisdiction would be not available to the Collector as
under Section 11 of the Act such power was conferred on the Registrar
to rule on the eligibility on the issue of membership.
35. In "Shriram Ganpatrao Yawale Vs. Resident Deputy Collector,
Amravati & Ors", the learned Single Judge of this Court interpreting the
provisions of Section 27(3) and (3A) has held that the language of sub-
Pvr 37 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
section (3) itself shows that a primary society which has right to vote in
affairs of a federal society can appoint one of its members to vote on its
behalf and after such appointment, such member gets rights to vote on
behalf of his society. If the legislature wanted such member to be
appointed by a primary society to vote on its behalf in the affairs of the
federal society also should have completed two years from the date of
enrollment as a member of such primary society, the legislature could
have made that provision in sub-section (3) itself. It is thus clear that
any requirement of membership for minimum two years to become
eligible, to be nominated by a member society for inclusion of the
nominees name in the voters list to be prepared for the elections of a
federal society is not the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 27.
36. Adverting to the position in law as discussed above, in my clear
opinion, in the facts of the present case, it was not permissible for the
bank not to include the names of respondent no.5 in the provisional
voters list, on the purported objections as raised by the petitioner. The
nature of the objections as raised by the petitioner including on the
tenure of the membership of the nominee members, certainly required a
substantive enquiry touching the issues of eligibility and membership of
Respondent No 5, which could be undertaken only by the Registrar,
under Section 11 of the Act when invoked in a manner known to law. In
such exercise the parties would be required to be heard on such issues
Pvr 38 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
and only after considering the rival pleas and the materials, an
appropriate decision could be taken by the Registrar. It would be
preposterous to presume that an inquiry as serious as this would be
undertaken behind the back of the member society and as also the
nominee member, and in breach of principles of natural justice. It
would also be against the democratic principles of fair representation as
echoed by these statutory provisions. If the course of action as adopted
by the bank is recognized, the consequences are eminently arbitrary and
disastrous.
37. Lastly, Mr.Godbole's contention that this Court ought to mould the
relief and order an inquiry against respondent no.5 under Section 11 of
the Act, would be required to be stated to be rejected. The writ Court
would certainly not pass an order on the basis of such seriously disputed
materials and facts. It is always open to the bank to resort to any
procedure as available in law, if it is so aggrieved.
38. The effect of non inclusion of respondent no.5 in the provisional
voters list, was not only drastic for respondent no.5, but it also adversely
affected the substantive rights of the member societies of the bank, of
which respondent no.5 was the member and that too without such
societies being heard. This is certainly not the legislative scheme of the
provisions of Section 27 and the Rules as discussed above.
Pvr 39 45-46-wp5890-21=5891-21-reserved - Copy.odt
39. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitions must fail.
They are accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.
40. At this stage, on behalf of the petitioner a prayer is made that the
interim relief as granted by this Court (A.K. Menon, J.) on 24
September, 2021 and continued thereafter, be continued for one week.
41. The request is rejected.
42. The Election Officer is free to continue with the further electoral
process.
(G.S. KULKARNI, J.)
