AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.
The present petition challenges order dated 09.10.2026 passed by the respondent No.2 in application No. 58/2026 and 59/2026.
Facts as can be seen from the petition, are as under:
On 19.06.2026, a letter was issued by respondent No. 2 instructing member societies to submit a resolution between the period from 23.06.2026 to 22.07.2026, thereby, stating the names of their representatives who would be voting in the forthcoming elections for electing the Managing Committee of the respondent No.5, which is a Federal Society. Accordingly, a meeting of the respondent No. 6 Society was convened on 18.07.2026. In the said meeting, name of the petitioner and one Sau. Vijaya Arun Lokhande, were considered as representative voters of the said Society. However, out of the said persons nobody could be elected, as both the said persons garnered equal number of votes, i.e. six each. Even though it was incumbent as per the bye-laws of the Society that the Presiding Officer should cast one additional vote (casting vote), the same was not done. It was therefore resolved that guidance may be obtained from the respondent No. 4 regarding the same.
Accordingly, guidance was obtained, and the said respondent No. 4 by its letter dated 21.07.2026 stated that the meeting should be held in accordance with the provisions of Sections 27, 73-CA of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and as per the bye-laws of the concerned Society. In accordance with the said letter, a communication was issued on 22.07.2026 convening the meeting on 30.07.2026.
In the meeting so convened on 30.07.2026, the same was adjourned for want of Coram. Then another meeting was held on 07.08.2026, thereby resolving that the petitioner would be the representative voter. Accordingly, the Society submitted name of the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 on 10.08.2026. On 21.09.2026, a provisional voter list was published. An objection was raised to the provisional voter list by the respondent No. 7, by filing the same before the respondent No. 2, opposing the inclusion of name of the petitioner as representative voter. The petitioner also claimed that his name should be included in the voters list.
Both the objections of the respondent No. 7 and the claim of the petitioner were taken for inquiry by the respondent No. 2. Reports were called from the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, who stated that the election of the petitioner is being beyond the time limit prescribed, i.e. beyond 22.07.2026, and therefore his name cannot be considered. The respondent No. 2 passed two separate orders on 09.10.2026, thereby upholding the objection of the respondent No. 7 and rejecting the claim of the present petitioner to include his name in final voter list. The said order dated 09.10.2026 is challenge in the present petition.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 7, i.e. the original objector.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent No. 2 has gravely erred in upholding the objection of the respondent No. 7 and rejecting the claim of the petitioner. He would submit that the requisition of the respondent No. 2, stating therein that the names of the representative voters would be submitted till 22.07.2026, cannot be said to be mandatory in nature, and therefore the respondent No. 2 ought to have entertained the application of the petitioner for inclusion of his name. He would submit that in the initial meeting dated 18.07.2026, casting vote ought to have been casted by the President, which exercise was in terms of the bye-laws of the Society concerned. He would therefore submit that the subsequent meeting dated 30.07.2026 and 07.08.2026, would therefore be construed as extension of the original meeting dated 18.07.2026. He would submit that the respondent No. 7, has malafidely chosen to remain absent in the meeting dated 30.07.2026, along with his like-minded committee member, so that the meeting could not be held for want of quorum. He would therefore submit that the entire action is illegal and the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned Senior Counsel would refute the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the entire tenor of the letter dated 19.06.2026 would reveal that the said letter contemplates a particular time frame, which by the language of the letter can be said to be mandatory. He would submit that, no leverage can be granted as prayed for otherwise it would amount to opening floodgates. He would submit that even though, the letter by the respondent No. 2 was issued on 19.06.2026, the respondent No. 6 Society chose to sit over the said letter and did not convene a meeting till 18.07.2026, i.e., almost after a month of the said letter. He would therefore submit that the entire exercise is carried out in a haste, just to see to it that the petitioner is somehow elected as a voter representative in the election. He would also draw my attention that the petitioner did not raise any objection for omission to carry out the exercise of a casting vote as contemplated under the bye-laws and therefore it would not lie in his mouth to allege otherwise. He would also submit that even though, the report of the respondent No. 4 was received on 21.07.2026, the meeting was convened on 30.07.2026, vide intimation dated 22.07.2026. Thus, he would submit that the order is perfectly legal and valid.
Rival contentions fall for my consideration.
I have gone through the submissions of the parties and also the relevant statutory provisions.
The timeline is more or less not disputed. It is admitted fact on record that respondent No. 2 wide communication dated 19.06.2026 provided a period from 23.06.2026 to 22.07.2026, for submitting names of voter representatives. Thus, even though the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the situation would squarely fall within the proviso to Sub-rule 2 of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, it can very well be seen that there was enough gap of about a month to submit the names of the voter representatives. Furthermore, another fact which is clearly evident that one month time was granted, that is from 23.06.2026 to 22.07.2026 to submit such names. Nothing is borne out of the petition that what prompted the respondent No. 6 Society to convene the meeting at the fag end of the said time period in spite of being well aware of the same.
Furthermore, in the meeting there was no casting vote, but it was not objected by the petitioner. Nothing is recorded in the minutes that the petitioner tried to persuade the Presiding Officer or the President of the meeting to cast his casting vote as per the bye-laws. On the other hand, it was resolved that guidance would be obtained from from the respondent No. 4 regarding the same. Even as the said guidance was received on 21.07.2026 itself, it was well within the rights of the Society to convene a meeting on 21.07.2026 or at the most on 22.07.2026, which was the outer limit. Even though a letter of the respondent No. 2 setting out a time frame cannot be said to be mandatory, the said schedule cannot be given a complete go-bye in view of the fact that the controversy is regarding an election of the respondent No. 5, i.e. the Federal Society. If such a leverage would be given, the entire future election program would be disturbed.
Furthermore, another flaw in conducting the meeting is that a requisition that the meeting is conveyed on 30.07.2026 was given on 22.07.2026, i.e. on the last day of the time schedule given by the respondent No. 2. Such a course cannot be countenanced. The meeting was held on 30.07.2026 but was to be adjourned for want of sufficient quorum. The meeting was ultimately held on 07.08.2026, when the time lag or the schedule and the outer limit had already expired. It therefore cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to assert his right as a voter representative of the respondent No. 6 Society. It is well settled that the time schedule as prescribed in the electoral program has to be strictly complied with and any leverage in the said program even by a Writ Court is permissible only in extraordinary circumstances. The omission to hold meeting within the time schedule as prescribed, i.e., till 22.07.2026, in spite of sufficient opportunity in that regard, is fatal to the case of the petitioner.
Furthermore, even though it has been argued that the respondent No. 7 had no locus, that would be hardly of any relevance since the meeting itself is not conducted within the time schedule.
It is also argued that there is no rival claim and if the name of the petitioner is not inserted in the voters list, the Society would be without any representative. The argument in the peculiar facts and circumstances cannot be countenanced, since it is the respondent No. 6 who is to blame itself for the present state of affairs, by not holding the meeting in the time schedule as given by the respondent No. 2.
Looking at the totality of the circumstances, I find no merit in the matter, and the petition is therefore liable to be rejected, it is rejected as such.