Tukaram Maruti Pawar & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.

Today, when the matter is taken up the date for withdrawal of the nomination forms is already over and the election symbols were scheduled to be allotted to the candidates contesting the elections along with publication the final voters, as per the election programme of Respondent no. 7 / Society. The election programme has already commenced on 27.07.2026, upon its declaration by the Taluka Co-operative Election Officer.

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners are raising challenge to the provisional voters' list of Respondent no. 7 - Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Limited. The Petitioners are the members of Respondent no. 7 / Society who had challenged the inclusion of names of Respondent nos. 8 to 157, in the provisional voters' list on the ground that they are not the members of Respondent no. 7 / Society. The objection raised by the present Petitioners have been turned down by Respondent no. 6 - Taluka Co-operative Election Officer and Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society, Purna, vide order dated 16.07.2026.

Upon the challenge being turned down, the Petitioners have approached this Court with the following reliefs :

The Petitioners are seeking deletion of names of Respondent nos. 8 to 157, from the final voters' list for the elections of Respondent no. 7 / Society for the term 2026-2031, by setting aside the orders passed by Respondent no. 6. A prayer is also made that the election programme declared on 24.06.2026, should be quashed and set aside, since the voters' list is vitiated.

Mr. Ghatol Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners has challenged the order passed by Respondent no.6, contending that Respondent no. 7 / Society is a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, functioning in Village Avhai, Taluka Purna, District Parbhani. The area of operation of Respondent no. 7 is limited to the extent of Village Avhai. In order to become member of Respondent no. 7 / Society, it is necessary that a person should be a Khatadar or permanent resident of the village in area of operation in Society, and it is necessary that he should submit 7/12 extract of at least 7 Are land along with his Application of membership.

He further submits that the voters list is to be prepared as per by law no. 9 sub-clause 2 of Respondent no. 7 / Society, as the members availing agricultural and collateral for agricultural purposes. It is submitted that upon the completion of the term of earlier managing committee of Respondent no. 7 / Society, the Secretary of Respondent no. 7 / Society has prepared voters' list in accordance with Rule 6 and 7 of the Election Rules, 2014. It is alleged that the Secretary of Respondent no. 7 / Society has committed several illegalities by keeping the Managing Committee and Chairman of Respondent no. 7 in dark. He has prepared the provisional voters' list by fraud and mischief thereby including the names of Respondent nos. 8 to 158 who are not the members of Respondent no. 7/Society.

It is the contention of the Petitioners that Respondent nos. 1 to 158 are not borrowers of the Society. Similarly, Respondent nos. 8 to 112 are not possessing land in the area of operation of Respondent no. 7 / Society. According to the Petitioners, Respondent nos. 8 to 158 are not eligible to become member of Respondent no. 7 / Society, still their names are included in the provisional voters' list by manipulation by Respondent no. 7. He further submits that in fact while forwarding the provisional voters' list, the Managing Committee has to pass the resolution and affirm the contents of original voters' list which has not been done by the Managing Committee by certifying the provisional voters' list. The record produced by Respondent no. 7 i.e. the share register is manipulated by making overwriting and by inserting names of Respondent nos. 8 to 158, by is own signatures. Thus the voters who are not the members of Respondent on. 7 / Society, have been included in the voters' list, thus, it is required to be quashed and set aside.

It is submitted that, on noticing the inclusion of Respondent nos. 8 to 158 in the provisional voters' list, the Petitioners have raised objection before Respondent no. 6 / Assistant Registrar and Taluka Election Officer, who is the Competent Authority to entertain the objections to the voters list. After taking into consideration, the response of Respondent nos. 6 and 7, he has turned down, the objections raised by the Petitioners.

It is further submitted that the Returning Officer, has failed to take into consideration the evidence produced by the Petitioners which clearly established that Respondent nos. 8 to 158, are not the members of Respondent no. 7 / Society. In spite of that the objections raised by the Petitioners have been turned down.

It is submitted that the provisional voters' list forwarded by Respondent no. 7, did not bear the signature of the Chairman of the Society. Similarly, it was not supported by the resolution of the Managing Committee approving the provisional voters' list. Irrespective of the aforementioned deficiencies in the provisional voters list, the objection to the same has been turned down by Respondent no. 6. He further submits that this Court after issuing notice on 27.07.2026, has permitted the Advocate appearing for Respondent no. 7 / Society, to produce before this Court the ‘I’ and ‘J’ share register for perusal of this Court. According to him, he has already gone through the record and there are manipulations made by Respondent no. 7 in the said record by inserting names of Respondent nos. 8 to 158.

Mr. Ghatol Patil, further contends that the names of the members are added subsequently in the form ‘I’ and ‘J’. A copy of format ‘I’ and ‘J’ is tendered across bar in compilation of documents relied by the Petitioner. He would submit that the space between the two columns has been used by Respondent no. 7 to add the names of the members, which is not supported by any other documents and these names of the members are manipulated. Hence, the inclusion of their names in the provisional voters' list vitiates the election process and if they are not removed from the voters' list, it would adversely affect the working of the Society.

He submits that Respondent no. 7 has erroneously held that the dispute pertains to the objection to the membership. Therefore, it would come within the purview of Section 11 and 25 A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. He submits that the dispute is not only regarding the membership of Respondent nos. 8 to 158, it pertains to their inclusion in the provisional voters' list, thus, it was very much within the powers of Respondent no. 6 - Taluka Election Officer to decide the objection raised by the Petitioners on its own merits, after taking into consideration the record produced by the Petitioners which clearly established the manipulations made by Respondent no. 7.

According to him, if the Court is convinced that the provisional voters' list is manipulated, it is well within the powers of this Court to interfere with the election process that has already started. In support of his submission that, irrespective of the declaration of election programme and completion of most of the stages of election of the Managing Committee of Respondent no. 7, this Court can interfere with the Election process the Petitioner is relying on the decision of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that even though today the voters' list has been finalized and election symbols have been distributed to the candidates, Court can still interfere and grant stay to the election process. The Petitioner is relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Versus State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3746 and order passed by this Court in Kishan Tukaram Jadhav Versus The State of Maharashtra, in Writ Petition no. 5695/2025, dated 05.05.2025, where this Court has allowed the Writ Petition, even though the election process was already set into motion. Similarly, he relies on the decision in case of Pandurang Hindurao Patil Versus State of Maharashtra and others, 1983 Mh.L.J. 1081, where this Court has held that it is erroneous to hold that, in every Petition filed against a wrongful rejection or acceptance of nomination paper must be rejected and could not be entertained in view of the remedy of election petition after the election process is over. Reliance is also placed on judgment of Shivaji Marotrao Suryawanshi Versus State of Maharashtra and others, 200(2) Mh.L.J. 306, where the challenge was to the entire voters list of non borrower members, which was not inconformity with the provisions of law. It was, therefore, apparently bogus list. Therefore, considering the extra ordinary situation, this Court has invoked its powers under Article 226 to interfere with the election process which according to the Petitioners is squarely applicable to the present case.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has placed reliance on number of judgments of this Court to contend that, in spite of remedy of filing a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, this Court has ample powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the election process and he is requesting this Court to invoke such powers, since it is an extra ordinary situation i.e. inclusion of bogus voters in the voters list.

Per contra, the learned Advocate Mr. M.P. Kale, for Respondent no. 7, submits that after the objection was raised by the Petitioners, he has filed the say of Respondent no. 7 and has produced the record before Respondent no. 6. He submits that there is no manipulation or fraud played by Respondent no. 7, while preparing the provisional voters' list. In his reply dated 13.07.2026, he has stated that he has taken the charge of Respondent no. 7 / Society on 23.03.2023. The names of 155 members who are included by the provisional list, are entered in the share register by the erstwhile Secretary of Respondent no. 7, Mr. Mane. He has produced the names of those members in the say filed before Respondent no. 6. It is also stated that he has verified the share register, KCC ledger and upon inspection of the aforesaid record, in respect of 106 + 49 members. It appears that they have become members in the year 2019 and the amount of share contribution is already available in the share account. It is also stated that since their names appear in the register of members, he has included their names in the provisional voters list. It is further requested that in view of the aforementioned explanation appropriate orders may kindly be passed.

Thus according to him, there is no manipulation. He has also shown readiness to produce the I and J register maintained under 32 and 65 (1) of the Rules of 2014.

Learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Kadam, appearing for Respondent nos. 5 and 6, State Co-operative Election Authority Pune and Taluka Co-operative Election Officer, submits that Respondent no. 6 has rightly passed the orders after taking into consideration the scope of his powers to entertain the objections raised in the provisional voters' list. It is submitted that in fact the Petitioners are raising challenge to the membership of Respondent no. 8 to 153. Therefore, Respondent no. 6 is not empowered to decide the issue. Hence, he has rightly rejected the objection raised by the Petitioners vide order dated 17.06.2026. He would further submit that although there are various decisions of this Court in favour as well as against causing interference in the election process once the election programme is declared. The judgment dated 12.10.2021, passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 5878/2021, in Dattatraya Genba Lole and Others Versus The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, would be applicable to the present case in all force. Thus according to him, considering the advance stage of election no interference in election process is warranted at the hands of this Hon'ble Court.

Learned Advocate Mr. Navin Shah for Respondent no. 8 and learned Advocate Mr. D.B. Lingayat, for Respondent no. 158, also supported the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Kadam, for Respondent nos. 5 and 6, and learned Advocate Mr. M.P. Kale for Respondent no. 7. Learned Additional Government Pleader Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, also supports the impugned order and would adopt the arguments of learned Advocate for Respondent nos. 5 and 6.

After hearing the parties and appreciating the record, in my view, the two questions that arise for consideration of this Court are follows :

The averments made in the Writ Petition as well as the objection raised to the provisional voters' list is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation that exception is being taken to the inclusion of Respondent nos. 8 to 158 in the provisional voters' list on the ground that their names have wrongly included and they are not the members of the Society. Hence, their names which have been included by manipulation should be deleted from the provisional voters' list before issuing the final voters' list. The objection is raised to inclusion 165 members on the ground that they have not deposited the amount towards the share for becoming members of the Society. There is no entry in the register maintained for that purpose nor it is deposited in the Bank. According to him, some of the members are from other villages. Therefore, they are not entitled to become members of the said Society, as the membership is restricted only to the members who are residing within area of operation of the said Society; some of the members do not even hold any land within the village, as such, they are not eligible for becoming members as per bylaws of the Society.

The allegations are made against the Secretary of Respondent on. 7 that, he has manipulated the record in lieu of huge amount. Thus, the allegations against Respondent nos. 7 to 158 are that Respondent no. 7 has manipulated the record by inserting the names of Respondent nos. 8 to 158, which is not supported by any record and they are not eligible for becoming members of the Society. Thus, the whole controversy revolves around membership of Respondent nos. 8 to 158, which is allegedly manipulated by Respondent no. 7. The primary objection of the Petitioners is that the Respondent nos. 8 to 158 are not at all the members, hence their inclusion in the voters' list is not valid. so far as membership of a Society is concerned, it is governed by Section 11 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Any objection regarding membership of the Society is decided under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, which reads thus :

Upon reading of Section 11 of the Act, it is evident that the Registrar is the Authority to decide any question that arises whether a person is eligible for becoming a member of the Society or not. In the present case, the Petitioners have admittedly not approached the Registrar by raising any objection about the membership of Respondent nos. 8 to

Hence, the question whether or not Respondent nos. 8 to 158 are the members of Respondent no. 7 / Society, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to decide. The Registrar is the statutory authority to decide the disputed about the membership as provided under Section 11 of the Act.

The Returning Officer / Respondent no. 6 has rightly appreciated the issue raised by the Petitioners and have passed an order that it is not within his competence to decide whether or not the members who are included in the provisional voters list are members of Respondent no. 7 / Society. He can decide only if there are certain obvious mistakes that have been committed while preparing the voters' list such as discrepancy in the name, age, sex and other disqualification which are apparent from the Rules of the Society or as per the statutory Rules. He has appreciated the record produced by the Secretary and the certificate issued by him that the members who have completed one year and are holding share Rs. 100/- have been included in the voters' list and on the basis of the said certificate, it is held by him that he cannot delete the names of voters from the provisional voters' list by depriving them of their legitimate right of voting. He has also perused the record produced by Respondent no. 7 and has observed that these 155 voters have become members of Respondent no. 7 / Society in the year 2019, and the shares purchased by them is deposited in the share account and their names are included in the original register of membership. Therefore, their names have been included in the provisional voters' list. He has therefore. refused to interfere and delete the names of 165 voters. Resultantly, the order impugned has been passed.

Even from the impugned order, it is clear that the objection is as regards the membership of Respondent nos. 8 to 158. Therefore, it was not within the powers of Respondent no. 6. to decide the disputed membership of the Respondents herein. Hence, he has rightly passed the order refusing to entertain the objection raised by the Petitioners.

Upon refusal by Respondent no. 6 to exercise the powers to entertain the Petitioners, they have approached this Court and called upon this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by interfering in the election process which is at the stage of issuance of symbol to the contesting candidates. The grounds of objection of the Petitioners is again the same i.e. manipulation of record by adding Respondent nos. 8 to 158 in the provisional voters' list irrespective of the fact that they are not valid members and the record is allegedly manipulated by Respondent no. 7.

So far as the objection of the Petitioners to the provisional voters' list is admittedly on the ground of his objection to the membership of Respondent nos. 8 to 158 itself and not regarding any discrepancy in the names or any other issue which can be decided without going into the disputed questions or which requires evidence. Since the membership of the Petitioners can be questioned before the Registrar and unless Respondent nos. 8 to 158 are disqualified as members of the Society, their names cannot be deleted from the provisional voters' list.

Thus, in view of the disputed questions of membership raised by the Petitioner, the jurisdiction regarding deciding the membership would lie with the Registrar under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and the Petitioners have remedy to file dispute under Section 91 of the Act, raising a dispute since the subject matter touches the issue of election to committee. Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, reads thus :

Thus, from the aforementioned provision, there is no doubt that the Petitioner is having alternate statutory remedy by challenging the decision of Respondent no. 6 before the Co-operative Court, under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Although the Petitioners have relied on various judgments as referred (supra), the latest judgment of this Court in the case of Dattatraya Genba Lole (supra), has taken into account of the relevant decisions governing the field available till the date of passing of orders by this Court on 26.11.2021, and has laid down that whether or not Petitioner no. 3 before the Court was a defaulter on the cut off date or at a latter stage may be raised if elections have been concluded under Section 91 of the Act, read with the Rules.

It is further observed that the kind of challenge raised at the intermediate stage of election process could not justify exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at that stage.

Upon making aforementioned observations, the Court has refused to entertain the Writ Petition. While deciding the aforementioned Writ Petition, the Court has been pleased to frame question which reads thus :

While answering the afore mention question this Court has made following observations :

Although the Petitioners have cited the judgments in which this Court interfered in the midst of the election process, those orders were passed in view of the obvious illegalities which were apparent on the face of the record. However, in the present case since the question relates to the disputed membership of Respondent nos. 8 to 158, it would not be appropriate to cause interference in the election process which is already set in motion on 24.06.2026, by declaring the election programme, even otherwise the Petitioners have failed to make out any case for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction by this Court, for which, the Petitioners have statutory alternate remedy.

Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, being devoid of merits.

However, the Petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to the other remedies available to them under the law.

Rule is discharge.