Shri. Utkal Vilasrao Kokate vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

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

The present petition takes exception to the order dated 09.10.2026, passed by the respondent No. 2, the District Co-operative Election Officer & Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati, who has allowed the objections raised by the respondent Nos. 7 and pursuant to which the name of the present petitioner who had been nominated as the representative of the respondent No. 6, Society, for the Election of the Board of Directors of respondent No.5, Bank, for the term 2026 – 2031, was directed to be deleted from the voters list.

Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present petition are that for the forthcoming elections of the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 5 – Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘ADCC Bank’) for the term 2026-2031, the respondent No. 2 issued a communication dated 19.06.2026 calling upon member societies to submit resolutions electing their representative voters between 23.06.2026 to 22.07.2026.

Pursuant to the said communication, the respondent No. 6 – Member Society convened a Meeting of Managing Committee on 13.07.2026. By way of a secret ballot, a resolution was passed by majority, selecting the petitioner as its representative voter. Consequently, the petitioner’s name was included at Sr. No. 30 in the provisional voters list published on 21.09.2026.

In the interregnum, some members of the respondent No. 6, Society, including respondent No. 7, filed a dispute before the Co-operative Court, Amravati (Dispute No. 56/2026) challenging the validity of the meeting dated 13.07.2026, along with an application for an interim stay. Following the publication of the provisional voters list, respondent No. 7 raised an objection on 30.09.2026 before respondent No. 2 seeking deletion of the petitioner’s name on the ground of the pending dispute.

Respondent No. 2 took up the objection for enquiry passed the impugned order dated 09.10.2026 allowing the objection and directing the deletion of the petitioner’s name. Consequently, the petitioner's name was omitted from the final voters list published on 14.10.2026. Further, Co-operative Court granted the interim stay in Dispute No. 56/2026 only later, on 12.10.2026.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 – DCEO & Jt. Registrar grossly erred in treating a summary proceeding for voters list preparation as a substantive adjudication of the meeting dated 13.07.2026. The power to decide claims and objections under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, is strictly confined to correcting factual particulars and does not confer unrestricted jurisdiction to annul managing committee's resolution on hyper-technical procedural grounds.

Respondent No. 2 failed to appreciate that respondent No. 7 had already instituted Dispute No. 56/2026 before the Co-operative Court, Amravati, challenging the very same resolution. By invalidating the resolution through a voters list objection, respondent No. 2 impermissibly assumed the powers of the Co-operative Court and conducted a collateral determination of a sub-judice controversy.

Lastly, he submits that respondent No. 2 ignored material evidence on record, specifically that the resolution electing the petitioner was passed by a majority on 13.07.2026, and the respondent No. 6 – Member Society explicitly affirmed this resolution in its official say filed on 05.10.2026.

To buttress his submissions learned Counsel for petitioner has relied on the following citations:

Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 vehemently opposed the petition and supported the impugned order dated 09.10.2026 passed by respondent No. 2. He further place reliance was placed on the interim order dated 12.10.2026 passed by the learned Co-operative Court, Amravati in Dispute No. 56/2026 and submits that since the competent Co-operative Court has specifically stayed the operation of the resolution dated 13.07.2026 and explicitly restrained the petitioner from acting as the representative of respondent No. 6, the present petition is effectively rendered infructuous.

Learned Counsel further submits that the proceedings dated 13.07.2026 were prima facie illegal and contrary to the society's bye-laws. He contends that the Secretary of respondent No. 6 unlawfully initiated a secret ballot process without the authorization or consent of the Chairperson, who was actively presiding over the meeting.

I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and with their able assistance gone through the impugned order.

The facts as stated supra, are more or less not in dispute.

As can be seen from the impugned order, the respondent No. 2 has proceeded to allow the objection filed by the objector only on a premise that the passing of a resolution for appointing of a voter representative would always mean that a resolution in terms of the bye-laws is passed. If the resolution appointing the petitioner as a voter representative is perused, there are no details whatsoever regarding the alleged secret voting being undertaken for electing the same. Furthermore, a perfunctory glance, prima facie, would reveal that some portion has been added subsequently. It is also an admitted position that no record of such subsequent voting by secret ballot is produced before me.

Furthermore, after passing of the impugned order which is dated 09.08.2026, the Co-operative Court, Amravati, in C.C.A. No. 56/2026 has passed an order below Exhibit 5 on 12.10.2026, thereby restraining the Society and its secretary from acting upon the resolution dated 13.07.2026. It has also restrained the present petitioner from acting as a representative of the said Sanstha. Thus, taking overall view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the entire exercise of appointing the petitioner as a voter representative seems to be doubtful in view of the clandestine exercise and conducting of meeting of the Society concerned.

In addition to this the Co-operative Court has stayed the very said resolution appointing the petitioner to act as a voter representative and has restrained the present petitioner from acting as a representative of the said Society. Nothing has been placed on record before me to show that the order of the Co-operative Court is varied or set aside by any Appellate Authority.

As far as judgments cited by learned Counsel for petitioner is concerned, the judgment of Kamalabai and Bharat (supra), speaks about the non-availability of power to Registrar to adjudicate about validity or otherwise of the Resolution. Even though the said proposition is not debatable, in the present case Co-operative Court has granted stay to the resolution.

Likewise, even the locus of the respondent is doubtful (Judgments of Bhimrao, Manasi and Ashalata) cited, that cannot be the only reason in view of the stay granted by Co-operative Court. Thus, all these judgments are not helpful to the case of the petitioner.

In my considered opinion, therefore, if a relief as such is granted, that would be putting a stamp on the surreptitious exercise being undertaken by the respondent No. 6, Society. A reference of such an exercise is also found in the report of the Assistant Registrar submitted before the respondent No. 2. Taking overall view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The petition is therefore without any merit, liable to be rejected and is rejected as such.