Bombay High Court
Ramchandra Jakappa Nandavadekar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 9 April, 2025
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:16719-DB
RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN
DILWALE
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Digitally signed by
RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN DILWALE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2025.04.10 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
12:33:50 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO.4228 OF 2025
1. Ramchandra Jakappa Nandavadekar }
Age-62 years, Occ- Agriculture, }
2. Allabaksh Fakaru Sayyad }
Age-56 years, Occ- Agriculture }
3. Hanmant Vishnu Gurav, }
Age-50 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
4. Keshav Dulbaji Ilage, }
Age-70 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
5. Arjun Nana Naik, }
Age-65 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
6. Balu Vithoba Patil, }
Age-71 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
7. Vitthal Dhondiba Nevage, }
Age-59 years, Occ- Agriculture, }
8. Bharamu Rajaba Ilage, }
Age-73 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
9. Tukaram Sataba Patil, }
Age-75 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
10. Vithoba Satu Sawant, }
Age-79 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
11. Shrikant Balaku Nevage, }
Age-69 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
12. Parashram Ramchandra Ilage, }
Age-66 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
13. Balaku Ravaji Ilage, }
Age-73 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
14. Isak Saifo Mulla, }
1/18
::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2025 10:18:33 :::
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Age-64 years, Occ- Agriculture, }
15. Maruti Gundu Mudale, }
Age-67 years, Occ- Agricuture, }
16. Prabhakar Dulabaji Ilage, }
Age-63 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
17. Namita Bharamu Patil, }
Age-58 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
18. Gundu Dhondiba Nandavadekar, }
Age-78 years, Occ- Agriculture, }
19. Tanaji Sakharam Ilage, }
Age-67 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
20. Arjun Janaba Ilage, }
Age-70 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
21. Rukamana Krishna Niturkar, }
Age-49 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
22. Laxman Ramchandra Dhanavade, }
Age-52 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
23. Bharamu Maruti Gavade, }
Age-58 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
24. Shivaji Laxman Ilage, }
Age-64 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
25. Bashir Umar Sayyad, }
Age-61 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
26. Gous Nanhu Sayyad, }
Age-73 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
27. Ramji Motiram Giri, }
Age-68 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
28. Sadashiv Appa Sutar, }
Age-72 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
29. Ramchandra Laxman Dhanavade, }
2/18
::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2025 10:18:33 :::
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Age-82 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
30. Anand Dhondiba Mudale, }
Age-60 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
31. Mahadev Khobana Birje, }
Age-79 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
32. Maruti Janaba Ilage, }
Age-69 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
33. Vitthal Balaku Nevage, }
Age-75 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
34. Satuppa Bhau Ilage, }
Age-67 years Occ-Agriculture }
35. Gangubai Dasharath Ilage, }
Age-80 years, Occ- Agriculture, }
36. Arun Vithoba Nevage, }
Age-59 years, Occ- Agriculture, }
37. Santosh Bhau Ilage, }
Age-64 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
38. Shamrao Janaba Ilage, }
Age-69 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
39. Bajil Kaitan Shiker, }
Age-60 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
40. Anant Dulbaji Ilage, }
Age-66 years, Occ-Agriculture }
41. Husen Nanhu Sayyad, }
Age-71 years, Occ- Agriculture, }
42. Akbar Husen Sayyad, }
Age-62 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
43. Ramchandra Janaba Patil, }
Age-78 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
44. Satuppa Satappa Madekar, }
3/18
::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2025 10:18:33 :::
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Age-63 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
45. Shabbir Ajarekar, }
Age-69 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
46. Shanta Shripati Gavade, }
Age-61 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
47. Fayaj Rasul Fakir, }
Age-56 years, Occ-Agriculture, }
All above residing at Village-Gavase, }
Tal. Chandgad, Dist. Kolhapur }
.Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra }
Through its Principal Secretary }
Department of Co-operation, }
Mantralaya, Mumbai. }
2. The Commissioner, }
of Co-operative Department, }
2nd Floor, New Central Building, }
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, }
Pune-411001. }
3. The State Co-operative }
Election Commissioner, }
Having Office at Pune, }
Old Central Building, 5, BJ Road, }
Gr Floor, Pune 41001. }
4. Taluka Co-operative Election }
Officer and Asst. Registrar (Dairy) }
E Ward, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur. }
5. Shri. Hanuman Sahakari Dugdh }
Vyavsayik, Sanstha, Ltd. Gavase, }
Tal. Chandgad, Dist. Kolhapur }
.. Respondents
...
4/18
::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2025 10:18:33 :::
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Mr. D. V. Sutar with Ms. Latika Kabad i/by Ms. Kavita D.
Vijapure, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader with Mrs. Reena A.
Salunkhe, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Dilip Bodake, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Mr. Saurav Katkar with Mr. Amar D. Parsekar, Advocates for the
Respondent No.5.
...
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ
DATE : 9th APRIL 2025.
JUDGEMENT :
(Per:A. S. CHANDURKAR, J)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned
counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge raised in this writ petition filed by 47 members
of Shri Hanuman Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sanstha (for short,
'the Society') a co-operative society registered under the provisions
of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short,
'the Act of 1960'), is to the provisional voters list published on
14/02/2025 as well as the election programme for conducting
elections to the Managing Committee of the Society published on
11/03/2025. The petitioners also pray that a fresh voters list be
published by including their names and thereafter conduct the
said elections.
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
3. The facts relevant for considering the challenge as raised in
the writ petition are that the elective term of the Managing
Committee of the Society came to an end some time in 2022.
However, the fresh elections were postponed for one reason or the
other. The provisional voters list came to be published on
14/02/2025 containing names of 132 members enrolled upto
31/03/2022. Since the names of about 59 members were
excluded from the provisional voters list, the said members raised
an objection before the Assistant Registrar on 18/02/2025. The
Assistant Registrar on 25/02/2025 heard the objections and held
that as the said 59 members were supplying milk to another co-
operative society which was against bye-laws of the Society, they
had ceased to be members of the Society. The petitioners being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order rejecting their objections
approached the Taluka Co-operative Election Officer by invoking
the provisions of Rule 11(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (for short, "the Rules
of 2014"). The Election Officer considered the objections as raised.
He held that as the said 59 members were stated to be supplying
milk to another co-operative society, they had ceased to be
members of the Society. On this ground , the objection was turned
down. Thereafter, the election programme for holding elections to
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
the Managing Committee came to be declared on 12/03/2025. It
is in this backdrop that the petitioners have filed the present writ
petition.
4. It is to be noted that the petitioners had earlier approached
this Court by filing Writ Petition No.4029/2025 on 17/03/2025
for challenging the order dated 28/02/2025 passed by the
Election Officer under Rule 11(3) of the Rules of 2014. A learned
Single Judge heard the writ petition on 28/03/2025 and held in
paragraphs 3 to 7 as under:-
"3. It is well-settled that the deletion of a member's name
from the rolls of a cooperative Society must be in consonance
with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, which governs
the cessation of membership. Any decision taken in
derogation of these statutory provisions is liable to be struck
down as arbitrary and ultra vires.
4. The Returning Officer, being a statutory functionary, is
bound by the constraints of Rule 11 and cannot assume
adjudicatory jurisdiction over disputes concerning
membership. Thus, if the petitioners contend that their names
were illegally removed from the voters' list without due
process, the appropriate remedy is to approach this Court by
way of a writ petition challenging the preliminary voters' list
rather than invoking the limited powers of the Returning
Officer under Rule 11.
5. In light of the above discussion, I am of the considered
view that a writ petition against an order passed by the
Returning Officer under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, does not merit interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power of
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
judicial review in such matters is limited to correcting
jurisdictional errors and ensuring adherence to due process,
which in the present case, does not appear to have been
violated at the stage of the Returning Officer's determination.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No
order as to costs.
7. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach
this Court by way of an independent writ petition seeking
appropriate relief, if so advised, in accordance with law."
5. Mr. D. V. Sutar, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in support of the challenge raised to the provisional
voters list submitted that the names of 59 members of the Society
came to be deleted from the provisional voters list on the premise
that they had ceased to be members of the Society as they were
supplying milk to another co-operative society. This alleged act
was considered to be against bye-laws of the Society. Without
following the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1960 as well
as the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short,
"the Rules of 1961") in this regard, the petitioners had been
deprived of their membership. Referring to the provisions of
Sections 25 and 25A of the Act of 1960 read with Rules 28 and 29
of the Rules of 1961, it was submitted that in breach of the
aforesaid provisions, the petitioners had been deprived of their
membership. According to him, the petitioners were neither
removed from the Society nor had been expelled. On this ground,
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
the action of removal of their names from the Membership
Register had been undertaken without granting them any
opportunity and without following the procedure prescribed. As a
result, the petitioners were deprived of participating in the
elections of the Managing Committee in an arbitrary manner. The
number of members deprived from participating in the elections
was substantial thus vitiating the elections itself. To substantiate
his contentions in this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance
on the decisions in Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 543, K. Venkatachalam Vs.
A. Swamickan & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1723, Election Commission of
India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. AIR 2000 SC
2979, Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V. and P. Sangh Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 133, Pundlik Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 181, Dattatray Genaba Lole and
Ors. Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar and Ors. 2021:BHC-
AS:17316-DB and Sadashiv Shivaji Dhenge Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. 2024:BHC-NAG:1573-DB. It was thus
submitted that the petitioners be granted the reliefs as prayed for.
6. Per contra, Mr. Saurav Katkar, learned counsel appearing for
the Society opposed the writ petition and submitted that the
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
petitioners were no longer members of the Society. In the Annual
General Meeting of the Society held on 23/10/2021, Resolution
No.8 was passed cancelling the membership of the petitioners as
they were supplying milk to another co-operative society in
breach of the bye-laws of the Society. For this reason, the names
of the petitioners were rightly not entered in the provisional voters
list. It was further submitted that the final voters list came to be
published on 28/02/2025 wherein names of 132 members were
shown. Since the election programme was published on
12/03/2025, there was no reason for this Court to interfere in the
election process. The elections had progressed and had reached
an advanced stage. Hence, no relief could be granted to the
petitioners. They could raise such grievance after the conclusion
of the elections. The learned counsel placed reliance on the
decision of the Division Bench in Shriram Siddheshwar Dubal Vs.
The District Co-operative Election Officer & Ors. 2022:BHC-
AS:9695-DB.
Mr. Dilip Bodake, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent nos.3 and 4 relied on the affidavit in reply and
submitted that since the election programme had commenced, no
interference in the same was called for. He too submitted that the
writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with
their assistance we have perused the documents on records. We
have thereafter given thoughtful consideration to the respective
submissions. At the outset, it may be noted that insofar as the
order dated 28/02/2025 passed by the Election Officer rejecting
the objections raised to the provisional voters list is concerned,
the same was the subject matter of challenge by the petitioners in
Writ Petition No.4029 of 2025. The learned Single Judge declined
to interfere with the said order in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India but permitted the
petitioners to raise a challenge to the provisional voters list. It
would therefore not be permissible for us to go into the
correctness of the order dated 28/02/2025 passed by the Election
Officer.
8. The petitioners were granted liberty to raise a challenge to
the provisional voters list in accordance with law. It is on that
premise that such challenge as raised by the petitioners to the
provisional voters list deserves to be considered. However, while
doing so, it is also to be borne in mind that the final voters list has
now been published on 28/02/2025 after which the election
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
programme has also been declared. It is well settled by various
decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court that on the
commencement of the election programme, the Court would be
slow in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Hence any interference in the election
programme so as to stall the conduct of elections is normally
avoided. The limited scope of interference in a case of such nature
has been succinctly laid down by Hon'ble R. M. Lodha, J (as his
Lordship then was) in Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate & others (supra). In
paragraph 25 of the said decision it has been observed as under:-
"As regards second objection raised by learned counsel
for the State and Mr. Anturkar about maintainability of
writ petition on the ground that since process of election is
started, this Court should not invoke its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, and,
dispute relating to it must be left to be resolved by way of
substantive election petition under Section 144-T of the Act
of 1960, it may be observed that this is a rule of prudence
and not a rule of jurisdiction. No doubt the High Court is
always slow and sparingly invokes its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India when there is challenge
to preparation of voters list but where the exceptional and
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
extraordinary case is made-out that the entire exercise of
election would be farce if the process of election is
completed on the basis of grossly invalid voters list
depriving majority of members of the society from
exercising right to vote, in my view, case is made-out for
invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution of India and the interference by this Court.
The edifice of valid election is built on valid list of voters
and where there is wholesale exclusion of members from
final list of voters, shockingly to the extent of 97% on
unjustifiable grounds, the High Court cannot imprudently
refuse to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and observe
that since the election process has started the dispute
should be resolved through election petition."
Thus, if it is found that a large number of members of a co-
operative society are illegally deprived of participating in the
elections in a manner contrary to law or on account of any
arbitrary act on the part of the society or the Election Officer,
interference to that limited extent would be permissible. In the
present case, more than 30% of the members of the Society have
been deprived of participating in the elections by dismembering
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
them. Keeping this aspect in mind, the challenge raised by the
petitioners can be considered.
9. According to the Society, the names of about 59 members
came to be deleted from the provisional voters list on the premise
that these members were supplying milk to another co-operative
society contrary to the bye-laws of the Society. In the Annual
General Meeting of the Society held on 23/10/2021, a resolution
to that effect had been passed. The question therefore to be
considered is whether the name of a member can be removed from
the register of members on the basis of alleged breach of a bye-law
merely by passing a resolution in that regard.
In our view, on the basis of an alleged breach of a bye-law of
a co-operative society, the membership of the society cannot be
lost simply by removing the name of a member from the register of
members. Section 25 of the Act of 1960 prescribes for cessation of
membership either on resignation of such member being accepted,
or on transfer of his share or interest to another member or on the
death of such member or on his removal or expulsion from the
society. Under Section 25A of the Act of 1960, the name of a
member who has ceased to be a member or who stands
disqualified under the provisions of the Act of 1960 or the Rules
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
made thereunder has to be removed from the Membership
Register.
Rules 28 and 29 of the Rules of 1961 provide for the
procedure for expulsion of a member of the Society. Expulsion can
take place after giving due notice to the member alongwith an
opportunity to show cause. It is thus clear that Sections 25, 25A
of the Act of 1960 as well as Rules 28 and 29 of the Rules of 1961
are in the nature of the code in itself. Unless the procedure as
prescribed is followed, there would be no question of any member
losing his membership automatically on the ground that there
has been an alleged breach of the bye-laws.
10. In Shree Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. Wadikuroli
Vividh Karyakari Seva Society and Others, 2010 (5) Mh.L.J. 376, it
has been held in paragraph 5 as under:-
5) Section 25 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act says that a person shall cease to be a member of the
Society on resignation from the membership thereof being
accepted, or on the transfer of whole of his share or
interest in the Society to another member, or on his death,
or removal or expulsion from the Society, or where a firm,
company any other corporate body, Society or trust is a
member, on its dissolution or ceasing to exist. The
respondents, prima facie, do not fall under any of the
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
aforesaid clauses, except "removal or expulsion" from the
Society. Procedure for removal or expulsion from the
Society is prescribed under Rules 28 and 20 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules. Admittedly,
Rules 28 and 29 were not followed. Mr. Jahagirdar,
learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
procedure prescribed by Rules 28 and 29 was not required
to be followed because respondents 1 to 11 were not
removed or expelled from the membership but there was a
case of cessation of membership on account of the breach
of the bye-laws. I am, prima faice of the view that any
breach of a bye-law would not result into automatic
cessation of membership but the procedure for removal or
expulsion from membership would be required to be
followed even in case of breach of bye-laws of a
Society..........."
We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. In
our view, there cannot be any automatic cessation of membership
resulting in removal of the name of such member from the list of
members on the ground that such member had allegedly acted in
breach of the bye-laws. Cessation of membership has to be in
accordance with the Act of 1960 and the Rules of 1961.
It is thus crystal clear that without following the prescribed
statutory procedure, the petitioners have been treated as non-
members of the Society. The action of the Society is contrary to
settled law and thus arbitrary in nature resulting in violation of
the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As held by
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
the Supreme Court in Ahmednagar Zilla SDV and P Sangh Limited
and another (supra), in a given case if the voters list is found to
have been illegally prepared, there would be a scope for
interference.
11. Having found that the stand of the Society that the
petitioners ceased to be members of the Society on the ground
that they had breached its bye-laws is ex-facie illegal and not in
accordance with law, the question of relief to which the petitioners
would be entitled is required to be considered. It is not in dispute
that the election programme has commenced after its publication.
It would therefore not be justifiable to stall the election programme
by causing interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
petitioners, who constitute a sizeable number, have been illegally
and arbitrarily deprived of their membership rights. Since on
admitted facts, the membership of the petitioners has been
terminated by not following the procedure prescribed by the Act of
1960 and the Rules framed thereunder, the only relief that can be
granted to the petitioners is to permit them to participate in the
elections to the limited extent of conferring them the right to vote.
This is on the premise that they have been deprived of their
902-WP-4228-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
membership in an arbitrary manner contrary to law. Thus,
without interdicting the election process, the injustice caused can
be partially remedied.
12. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
i) It is held that the names of the petitioners have been
deleted from the provisional voters list without terminating
their membership as required by law. The petitioners would
therefore be entitled to participate in the elections only to the
extent of voting therein. As the elections are scheduled on
18/04/2025, the Taluka Election Officer and Assistant
Registrar (Dairy) Kolhapur as well as the Society shall take
necessary steps to enable the petitioners to cast their vote in
the election to the Managing Committee.
ii) Any party aggrieved by the outcome of the elections is
free to challenge the same by taking resort to the statutory
remedy available after declaration of results.
iii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
(iv) Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.
[ M. M. SATHAYE, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
