Bombay High Court
The Taluka Sahakari Shetkari ... vs Gov. Of Mah. Thr. Dist Co-Op. ... on 12 July, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/4 931.wp.3619.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3619 OF 2022
(The Taluka Sahakari Shetkari Kharedi Vikri Samiti Maryadit & Anr. V/s Government of
Maharashtra & Anr.)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders
Coram, Appearances, court's orders or
directions and Registrar's orders
Mr. S. K. Tambde, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. T. H. Khan, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Bhushan Dafle, Advocate for Respondent
No.2.
------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : JULY 12, 2022.
. By this Petition the Petitioners have challenged
order dated 13/6/2022, whereby the name of the Petitioner -
Society has not been included in the finalized voters list for
election to the Respondent No.2 - Federation of Societies.
2. The principal ground raised on behalf of the
Petitioner - Society is that no reason is stated in the impugned
order to hold against the Petitioner - Society, other than giving
an emphatic conclusion that the Petitioner - Society is a
defaulter. It is submitted that the provisions of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, specify a mechanism whereby
the Society/Member can be declared as a defaulter. In the
absence of any proceeding in that regard and finding rendered
Yadav VG
2/4 931.wp.3619.2022.odt
in terms of the provisions of the said Act, Respondent No.1 -
Election Officer could not have passed the impugned order.
3. The Respondents have appeared through Counsel. A
preliminary objection is raised as regards maintainability of the
present Petition on the basis that since certain disputed
questions of facts were being raised, the proper forum for the
Petitioner - Society would be to invoke Section 91 of the
aforesaid Act.
4. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 -
Federation invited attention of this Court to various documents,
including communication dated 12/11/2019, whereby
Respondent No.2 had made certain claims against the Petitioner
- Society and stated that the Petitioner - Society will be
rendered disqualified from exercising right to vote in the
backdrop of the circumstances stated in the said
communication. It is submitted that the Petitioner - Society
took no steps in that regard and that it was too late in the day
to now raise grievance about the impugned order passed by the
Election Officer.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared
on behalf of Respondent No.1 and invited attention of this
Court to various provisions of the said Act to contend that no
Yadav VG
3/4 931.wp.3619.2022.odt
case was made out to invoke writ jurisdiction. Election program
was already declared on 8/7/2022 and now the stage of
publishing finalized nomination paper had reached. The voting
is to take place in terms of the schedule specified in the election
program, already declared on 8/7/2022. On this basis it is
submitted that no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction
and that the Petitioner - Society can invoke Section 91 of the
said Act to seek redressal of its grievance.
6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Pandurang Laxman Kadam & Ors. V/s State of Maharashtra &
Ors. 2016(6) Bom.C.R.75 has held that once the election
process is set in motion which includes various stages
pertaining to electoral roll, ballot papers, nomination papers
etc. any dispute that may be raised by any aggrieved party has
to be by instituting a proper application/petition under Section
91 of the aforesaid Act. It was held that the said remedy cannot
be said to be an inefficacious remedy and this Court ought not
to exercise writ jurisdiction.
7. In the said judgment there is reference to exception
to the aforesaid Rule, to the effect that when the aggrieved
party is able to demonstrate that the entire election process has
been vitiated, the writ court may consider exercising
jurisdiction. No such contingency has arisen for approaching
Yadav VG
4/4 931.wp.3619.2022.odt
this Court. The grievance sought to be raised is an individual
grievance of the Petitioner - Society. The Respondent No.1 -
Election Officer has taken a view in the matter on the basis of
the material available on record while holding that the name of
the Petitioner - Society did not deserve to be included in the
finalized voters list. Since no exceptional case is made out, this
Court, while considering the issue in writ jurisdiction, is not
inclined to hold in favour of the Petitioner, particularly because
the election program is already declared on 8/7/2022 and the
process is underway.
8. As per the aforesaid position of law, the Petitioner
would certainly be entitled to invoke Section 91 of the said Act
to raise election dispute, if so advised. The disputed questions
raised between the parties can be considered in such a
proceeding.
9. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed,
with liberty to invoke Section 91 of the said Act.
10. It is made clear that if such a proceeding is initiated
by the Petitioners, the same shall not be influenced by the
observations made in the impugned order that the Petitioner is
a defaulter.
Digitally Signed ByVIJAYA
GOURISHANKAR YADAV
(MANISH PITALE, J.)
Signing Date:14.07.2022
17:22
Yadav VG
