Gram Vividh Kayakari Sahakari Sanstha, Limited, Borgao (m) vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Heard.

Since both these petitions raise identical questions, they are being decided by this common judgment.

For the sake of brevity, Writ Petition No.8229 of 2026 is taken up as the lead petition.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith in both the petitions. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Both the petitions challenge order dated 04.09.2026 passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. the District Co-operative Election Officer and Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati, thereby rejecting the application dated 20.08.2026 submitted by the petitioner for change of its representative. Facts which are more or less not disputed are as under :

The election of the respondent No.3 – District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Yavatmal, for the term 2026-31, was announced on 28.11.2025. Vide communication of even date, the respondent No.3 called upon the societies like petitioners to forward the names of their respective representative for the said election. The previous Executive Committee of the petitioner-Society for the term 2020-2025 forwarded the name of the respondent No.5 as its representative. Thereafter, in the month of April 2026 fresh elections of the Executive Committee were conducted and a new Executive Committee was elected. Thereafter, on 29.07.2026, the petitioner – Society submitted an application to the respondent No.2 seeking permission to withdraw the name of the representative forwarded by the previous Executive Committee and submit name of a new representative. On 30.07.2026, fourth respondent issued a communication directing the Secretary of the petitioner – Society to take appropriate action in terms of Rule 10 (4) of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. In pursuance to this, the Secretary issued a notice on 01.08.2026 to all the Directors for the meeting of the Executive Committee of the petitioner – Society.

A meeting was accordingly held on 04.08.2026 wherein the petitioner – Society by majority nominated one Shri Ghansham Ramdas Pote (Manohar Yeole in Writ Petition No.8232/2026) as its representative for the upcoming election of the third respondent – Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application on 20.08.2026 and forwarded the name of its new representative to the second respondent for inclusion of the name in the final voter list. However, by way of impugned order dated 04.09.2026, the respondent No.2 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The said order is challenged in both these petitions.

I have heard Shri Firdos Mirza, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as also Mrs. Barabde, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 4 and Mr. Dangre, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

Mr. Mirza, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the factual aspects as stated supra submits that impugned order is totally unsustainable in law. He submits that the only aspect which has weighed with the respondent No.2 is a communication dated 28.11.2025 wherein it is stated by way of a condition that there should be only one resolution by the concerned Society for nominating its representative. He submits that the said communication is directly in teeth of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Rules stated supra.

For the sake of brevity, sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, is reproduced as under :

A bare reading of the said provision would reveal that the said provision grants a leverage to the newly elected Executive Committee to change its representative, who would vote in the election of the respondent No.3 – Bank, in specific contingencies as mentioned in the said sub-section. The said sub-section also contemplates that the Society is permitted to change the name of the representative only in case of death or resignation or the newly elected Committee decide to change the name not later than five days before the last date for making nomination.

Taking cue from this section, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the communication on which the entire edifice of the impugned order rests is directly contrary to the said statutory provision. He also draws support from sub-rule (5) of Rule 11 of the said Rules, which provides that if any change in the final voter list is done in accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 10, the District Co-operative Election Officer would make necessary changes in the final voter list.

Taking aid of these provisions, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, if sub-rule (4) and sub-rule (5) of Rule 11 are read in conjunction, a window has been granted to the newly elected Executive Committee. He, therefore, submits that the said aspect has been totally ignored by the respondent No.2 resulting in passing the impugned order. He, therefore, states that the said order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (5) Mah.LJ 242, Sangli Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., and more particularly, paragraph 9 thereof in which the entire scheme of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 has been discussed. Placing reliance upon the said judgment, it is the contention, the learned Senior Counsel that this Court has went on to hold that the delegate can be allowed to be changed and the time frame mentioned in the said Rule cannot be construed as a fetter to permit such change.

Per contra, Mr. Dangre, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 raises a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition. He submits that there is an alternate remedy in the form of an election petition under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and therefore, a writ Court would be loath to interfere at the stage of the election. He submits that there is no averment in the petition that there is violation of fundamental rights nor there is anything pleaded as to the impugned order being without jurisdiction. He, therefore, submits that in view of the fact that there is an alternate remedy available, this Court would not interfere, and that too when the election process is ongoing.

He also points me out that there has been inordinate delay in filing the petition. Since the impugned order is passed on 04.09.2026 and the petition being filed on 23.09.2026. On merits, he submits that the respondent No.2 was within its right to non-suit the petitioner, since the resolution of the petitioner – Society does not spell out any reason much less a justifiable one, for replacing the name of the respondent No.5 with the name of some other person. He also submits that the person, who has been now resolved to be representing the petitioner-Society is the person aggrieved and he has not chosen to approach this court. In other words, he submits that the petitioner-Society has no locus to file the present petition.

Rival contentions fall for my consideration. I have gone through the impugned order. The entire edifice of the impugned order is on the Communication dated 28.11.2025 which states that the societies like the petitioner-Society would call for a meeting from 01.12.2025 to 31.12.2025. It further provides that the meeting should be conducted in transparent manner and in consonance with the provisions of bye-laws. Apart from the modalities stated in the said letter, it also states that only one resolution can be passed, otherwise an offence punishable under Section 146 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, would be registered against the erring persons.

In my considered opinion the said Communication dated 28.11.2025 does not take into consideration a substantive right granted to the petitioner-Society as engrafted under sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 as reproduced supra. However, other factors need to be gone into.

Admittedly, the dispute pertains to an election of Federal Co-operative Society and therefore, all these grounds would very well be available if a dispute is filed under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Furthermore, since the Court is sitting in an equity jurisdiction, the conduct of the parties also needs to be seen.

As can be seen from the record of the matter, the impugned order was passed on 04.09.2026 and the present petition was filed on 23.09.2026. It is an averment in the petition that the petition is being filed by a person, who is duly authorisied by a resolution passed in the meeting on 22.09.2026. Thus, it goes without saying that from 04.09.2026, the petitioner-Society had not taken any effective steps for challenging the said order. It was only in the meeting held on 22.09.2026, that the petitioner-Society chose to authorize its President to file the petition and the petition, accordingly, seems to be filed on 23.09.2026.

As can be seen from the record, even though the petition was filed on 23.09.2026, the objections in the matter were removed only on 07.10.2026 and the matter is heard by this Court on 08.10.2026. It can thus very well be said that there has been considerable delay in approaching this court. Had the petitioner-Society been diligent enough or serious in challenging the representation of the respondent No.5, it could have approached this Court well in advance. This aspect may not assume significance in ordinary parlance but would certainly have a bearing looking to the fact that the petition is to be decided in the backdrop of the ongoing election programme. As per the said election programme, the voting is to be scheduled on 11.10.2026. It is thus clear that all the intermediate stages have been passed in the elections and therefore, in my considered opinion, it would not be proper to interfere at such a ripe stage in an ongoing election process. Furthermore, another aspect which non-suits the petitioner is that the person in whose favour the resolution is passed empowering him to represent the Society is neither made a party to the petition in the form of the petitioner or the respondents. True it is that, it is the right of the petitioner-Society which are going to be hampered but it is also the said person, who is actually going to vote in the ongoing election of the respondent no.3. Thus, in my considered opinion, even though, the said person may not be a necessary party, he would have been at least a proper party. He could have been easily arrayed, firstly, as a petitioner himself or at least as a respondent. Omission to do so is fatal to the case of the petitioner.

It is for all these reasons that I am reluctant to interfere in writ jurisdiction, particularly in view of the fact that the election programme has substantially progressed. The fact remains that the petitioner-Society is not going to be unrepresented and the respondent No.5 is to represent the Society as he/she was nominated by the previous Executive Committee.

Taking overall view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition. Both the petitions are accordingly, dismissed. Rule stands discharged.