Smt. Latatai W/o. Prabhakar Pandit 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 order dated 09.10.2026, passed by the District Co-operative Election Officer and Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Amravati (i.e. respondent No.2), who has allowed the objection raised by respondent No.7 and has directed not to include the name of the petitioner as representative voter of the respondent No. 06 in the final voter list of ensuing Election of the respondent No.5 Society (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order” for the sake of brevity).

The facts shorn of unnecessary details are as follows:-

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned A.G.P appearing for respondent/State, the learned Counsel for respondent No.6 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.7.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on various grounds. It is his submission that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction, as the respondent No.2 has erred in entertaining the objection filed by the respondent No.7 and has failed to appreciate the fact that under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, power to make inquiries for deciding objections is confined to purpose of preparing provisional voter list and does not confer any power to annul a resolution, conduct of a meeting.

It is further his contention that the respondent No.2 also failed to consider the fact that the respondent No.7 being only a member of the respondent No.6 Society, had no locus whatsoever to raise any objection under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2014, and on this count as well the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law.

He further submits that the respondent No.2 also failed to appreciate the fact that proceeding U/s 91 of the Act of 1960 filed by the respondent No.7 challenging the same resolution were already pending before the Co-operative Court, Amravati, who had also rejected to grant any stay against the said resolution, and therefore the respondent No.2 could not have transgressed into the jurisdiction of Co-operative Court and passed the impugned order as the respondent No.2 inherently lacks the jurisdiction to decide the said issue.

It is further his contention that the respondent No.2 erred in treating the absence of the venue in the notice dated 06.07.2026 as a ground to invalidate the meeting dated 15.07.2026. It is his submission that the committee meetings of the respondent No.6 Society were customarily held at the residence of its President and the meeting dated 15.07.2026, also took place at the usual place, and the respondent No.7 and four other objectors had also submitted their letter dated 15.07.2026 at the meeting itself and therefore, the respondent No.2 could not have invalidated a meeting on such a hyper technical ground, wherein such omission did not prevent any member from participating in the meeting.

It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that omission of the name of the petitioner from the voters list has rendered the respondent No.6 without any representation for the election of respondent No.5, and participation of respondent No.6 cannot be defeated by extending a summary objection inquiry into a contested adjudication of its internal proceedings. Thus the exclusion of the petitioner from the voter list is therefore, arbitrary and contrary to the statutory scheme.

Lastly it is further the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 also failed to consider the notice of meeting, resolution dated 15.07.2026, objector’s contemporaneous letters, report submitted by respondent No.4 on 24.07.2026, order passed by the Co-operative Court rejecting stay to the resolution and the Reply filed by the respondent No.5 against the objection filed by respondent No.7, wherein the respondent No.5 supported the inclusion of the petitioner, and therefore on this count as well the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

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

Per Contra the learned A.G.P appearing for respondent/ State and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.7 support the impugned order.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.7/Objector at the outset would submit that the resolution by which name of the petitioner was finalized is a result of an illegal meeting, and the challenge to the same is pending before the learned Co-operative Court, Amravati and therefore it is his submission that till the same is finally decided, the name of the petitioner may not be included in the final voter list.

It is further his submission that the respondent No.2 has rightly passed the impugned order after calling the replies/say on the objection filed by him, wherein the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had stated in their reply that the name of the place of the meeting was not mentioned in the notice of meeting, and therefore the respondent No.2 by relying on the said replies has acted well within the four corners of the law and has passed the impugned order.

I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, and also gone through the record of the matter. As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 on 09.10.2026, the only aspect which has weighed with the said respondent in allowing the objection of the respondent No. 7 is that no venue of the meeting to be conducted for electing the voter representative was conveyed. However, it is an admitted fact on record that the meeting used to be conducted on the same venue, i.e. the residence of the President. Furthermore, a perfunctory perusal of the resolution would reveal that six members have voted in favour of the resolution that the petitioner should be a voter representative.

As far as judgment of Kamalabai is concerned, same states that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of otherwise of the resolution of the society and it is only the domain of Co-operative Court. Judgments of Bharat and Narayan speak about the eventuality of society going unrepresented. The other judgments pertain to locus of the objector.

In view of the propositions in these judgments, it can safely be said that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon validity of resolution and the objector had no locus.

Furthermore, only because the venue is not mentioned, that cannot be said to be a defect of substantial nature, not to give benefit of doubt to the present petitioner. Furthermore, admittedly six members of eight present have consented for appointment of petitioner as a representative. As can be seen from the record of the matter that on the very same fact, the Co-operative Court has rejected the stay application filed by the respondent herein for staying the resolution. In the totality of circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petition needs to be allowed, and it is allowed as such.

The impugned order dated 09.10.2026 is quashed and set aside. It is clarified that the observations in this judgment would not come in way of Co-operative Court or the Co-operative Appellate Court in dispute/appeal filed or pending before it.

The respondent No. 2 is further directed to include the name of the petitioner as a representative voter of the respondent No. 6 in the final voter list.

The Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.