Vilas Bhausaheb Dabhade vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally at the stage of admission.

In this Writ Petition the issue raised by the Petitioner is whether a member of the Primary Credit Co-operative Society who has been delegated to vote in a representative capacity, can be disqualified on the ground that he is a defaulter of another primary credit co-operative Society registered in the same village.

The Petitioner is a member of the Managing Committee of Respondent no. 6 – Sant Savtamali Vividh Karyakari Sahkari Seva Sanstha Maryadit, Talkibhan, Taluka Shrirampur, District Ahilyanagar (for short ‘Society’). Respondent no. 6 – Society is registered as a Primary Credit Co-operative Society and is a member of Respondent no. 8 - Bank which is a Federal Society. The general elections of Respondent no. 8 – Bank were declared and accordingly, the members Societies were directed to send the names of delegate voters to represent the respective Societies, for the general elections of Respondent no. 8 – Bank. Respondent no. 6 / Society resolved to delegate the Petitioner as a voter for Respondent no. 6 / Society. The resolution passed by Respondent no. 6 – Society nominating the Petitioner as its delegate was forwarded to Respondent no. 4 – Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society, Shrirampur. The provisional voters' list of Respondent no. 8 – Bank, was published on 19.08.2026.

According to the election programme for preparation of voters' list, the objections to the provisional voters' list were to be filed before 31.08.2026, and the District Co-operative Election Officer and Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Society, Nashik, was appointed to decide the objections to the provisional voters' list. Respondent no. 5 has raised objection to the inclusion of the name of Petitioner in the provisional voters' list, to represent Respondent no. 6 – Society. The objection was raised on the ground that, the Petitioner has inherited agricultural land along with other legal heirs in Gat no. 76 of Taklibhan village admeasuring 2 H 85 R, from one i.e. Samindrabai, who was his grandmother. She had secured loan from one Taklibhan Taklibhan Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, in the year 2014, and mutation entry to that effect has also been recorded on the portion of land which was transferred in the name of Petitioner, by virtue of partition.

It was thus, alleged that the Petitioner is covered under the definition of a ‘defaulter’ and consequently, he has incurred disqualification requiring his name needs to be deleted from the provisional voters' list, of the general elections of Respondent no. 8 / Bank. The aforementioned objection raised by Respondent no. 5 has been upheld by Respondent no. 2 – District Election Officer @ Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nashik. Consequently, the name of the Petitioner has been ordered to be deleted from the provisional voters' list vide order dated 10.09.2026. On this background, the Petitioner has approached this Court raising challenge to the order passed by Respondent no. 2, on the ground that he is not a ‘defaulter’ of the Society who has nominated him to represent the Society as their delegate in the general election of Respondent no. 8 – Bank.

The learned Advocate Mr. R.R. Karpe, for the Petitioner submits that Respondent no. 2, has failed to appreciate the scope of Section 73 C A (1) (i) (f) (ii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ( for short ‘the MCS, Act’). Referring to the explanation of ‘defaulter’ Society, as provided in the aforementioned Section, he would submit that the clause (f) (ii) is the provision that squarely covers the case of the Petitioner. According to him, since the elections of Respondent no. 8 – Bank are the elections of District Central Co-operative Bank, the ‘defaulter’ in context with the elections of Respondent no. 8 – Bank is a person who is defaulter of a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society or is member of a defaulter Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. Only in these two contingencies, a person who is a member can incur disqualification on account of being ‘defaulter’. He submits that either the person who is a member of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, has to be a defaulter of that Society or is an office bearer of such Society who is defaulting Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. In the present case, the Petitioner is not defaulter of Respondent no. 6 – Society which can be supported from the certificate issued by Respondent no. 6 – Society, which certifies that the Petitioner is not a defaulter of Respondent no. 6 – Society. Similarly, although he is an office bearer of Respondent no. 6 – Society, said society is not in default. Therefore, in both eventualities, the Petitioner does not incur any disqualification.

Referring to the impugned order, he submitted that before passing the impugned order, the opinion of the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society, Shrirampur, has been recorded in the impugned order. The Assistant Registrar in his opinion has clearly stated that according to Section 73 C A (1) (i) (f) (ii) of the MCS, Act, if a member is a ‘defaulter’ of the Primary Credit Co-operative Society, his name cannot be forwarded as a delegate of that Society but in case of the present Petitioner, he being a member of Respondent no. 6 – Society, and not defaulter, cannot incur disqualification, even if he is a defaulter of Respondent no. 7 – Taklibhan Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, therefore, the Resolution passed by Respondent no. 6, is proper and valid and the objection to the inclusion of the name of the Petitioner in the provisional voters' list does not deserve consideration.

In addition to the opinion given by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shrirampur, the opinion of District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society, Ahilyanagar, also supported the cause of the Petitioner, reiterating the opinion given by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shrirampur. He submits that irrespective of the aforementioned opinion given by the two competent authorities of the co-operative department, the District Co-operative Election Officer has passed an order deleting the name of the Petitioner from the provisional voters' list. He submitted that after passing of the order on 10.09.2026, the final voters' list, has now been published by Respondent no. 2, on 15.09.2026, as per the election programme for preparation of voters' list declared by Respondent no. 2.

He submitted that in spite of preparation of the final voters' list the name of the Petitioner can still be included in the voters' list. Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies, (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, govern claims and objection to the provisional list of voters and final list of voters for the Societies and individual members. Referring to Rule 11 (4) he submits that even after declaration of the final voters' list there is a window of at least 10 to 15 days before the declaration of election programme. After the finalization of the claims and objections, the District Co-operative Election Officer is empowered to effect changes in final voters' list during this period in accordance to Rule 10 (5). Thus according to him even if the final voters' list is declared by Respondent no. 2, still the name of the Petitioner can be included in the final voters' list, which will not amount to causing disturbance in the election programme of Respondent no. 8 – Bank.

In support of his submissions, he relies on the decision of this Court in case of Dhanraj Dattatray Patil and Others Versus State Co-operative Elections Authority and Others, reported in 2023 LJSoft (BOM) 834, where in an identical fact situation, this Court while interpreting Section 73 CA read with Rule 27 (10) of the MCS, Act, has held that disqualification under Section 73 CA of the MCS, Act, deals with the elections to the Committee of a Society and it operates play only when a member of one Society is a defaulter of ‘any’ Society, and is contesting elections to the Committee, while exercising his right to vote, a member of one Society is a defaulter of ‘any’ Society, and is contesting elections to the committee, while exercising his right to vote, a member does not incur disqualification if he is defaulter of any other Society.

He further submits that in the aforementioned decision this Court has taken a view that, there is no bar under Section 27 (10) of the MCS, Act, for the defaulter of ‘any’ other society to vote in the elections of the Society, of which he is not a defaulter. He would therefore, submit that in view of the interpretation of Section 27 (10) and and Section 73 CA of the MCS, Act, as made by this Court in the aforementioned decision the Petitioner who is not a member of Respondent no. 7 – Society, cannot incur disqualification, if he is delegated by Respondent no. 6 – Society, to vote in the elections of Respondent no. 8 – Bank, since he is not a defaulter of Respondent no. 6 – Society.

Referring to the further observations made in the judgment (Supra), he submits that, the inclusion of name of the Petitioner in the voters' list at this stage will not disturb the election programme of Respondent no. 8 – Bank. This Court in case of Dattatray Geneba Lole and others Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others reported in 2022 (1) Bom.C.R. 471, has considered the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and has held that, there is no absolute bar for exercising the writ jurisdiction causing interference with the election process of a co-operative society, when there is patent illegality coupled with other factors such as stage of election and the effect of the interference that would be caused on the going elections, etc. He therefore, submits that even at this stage, the name of the Petitioner can very well be included in the final voters' list of the elections of Respondent no. 8 – Bank.

Learned Advocate Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, for the contesting Respondent no. 5, has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned Advocate of the Petitioner, and would submit that in view of the fact that Petitioner is a defaulter of Respondent no. 7 – Society, Respondent no. 2 has rightly passed an order deleting the name of the Petitioner from the provisional voters' list. He submitted that in fact Section 73 CA of the MCS, Act, itself is very much clear and self evident, it applies to the disqualification of committee and its members which covers various eventualities, it extends even to the family members of the Society, who are defaulters. Referring to Section 73 CA (1) of the MCS, Act, he submits that no person is eligible for being appointed, nominated, elected, co-opted or for being a member of the Committee, if such person is defaulter of ‘any’ Society. He submits that since the provision itself is very much clear, it leaves no room for any other interpretation. A person is disqualified if he is a defaulter of ‘any’ Society. The word any Society is a very wide term, which covers many eventualities. Therefore, it is evident that, even if a person may not be a defaulter of the Society who delegates him, but if he is a defaulter of some other Society, then such person would incur disqualification, as he would be covered by the explanation ‘any other Society’.

With reference to the disqualification incurred by the Petitioner, he submitted that Section 27 (10) of the MCS Act, governs the voting power of members, Section 27 (10) of the MCS, Act, provides that if a member has taken loan from the Society, such member becomes a defaulter as provided in the explanation to clause (i) of sub-Section 1 of Section 73 CA of the MCS, Act, he would have no right to vote in the affairs of the Society. He, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner is a defaulter of Respondent no. 7 – Society, as a consequence of default in the loan taken by his grandmother, the charge of the Society continues on the land, making the Petitioner ‘defaulter’ as provided under Section 73 CA (1) (i) of the MCS, Act. He also submitted that on account of the disqualification incurred by the Petitioner, his name is directed to be deleted from the voters' list, which does not take away the right of Respondent no. 6 – Society, to nominate some other person from the Society by passing a resolution and nominating such other person as their delegate, in the elections of the Respondent no. 8 – Bank.

In support of his submissions, that the term ‘any other Society’ in Section 73 CA (1) (i) of the MCS Act, is a wide term and it applies to Petitioner since he is a defaulter of Respondent no. 7 – Society, incurring disqualification for being a valid voter, reliance is placed on the reported decision of this Court in case of Damodar Shamrao Pande Versus State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 7054. Relying on the interpretation of Section 73 CA (1) (i) of the MCS, Act, i.e. ‘defaulter of any society’ in the decision supra, he submits that, this decision clearly mandates that, a person will be disqualified to be a member of a Society, if he is defaulter in any other Society. The term ‘any’ is very wide, which disqualifies a person to be appointed as a member of the Society, in case he is a defaulter of another Co-operative Society.

On the background of the aforementioned decision of this Court, he would submit that in the instant case the Petitioner stands covered by the explanation of ‘defaulter’ of any Society, hence, the order passed by the Respondent no. 2, is passed after taking into consideration the interpretation of the provisions governing disqualification of voters, as such no interference is warranted in the order impugned and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Kadam, for Respondent no. 2 – Competent Authority, who has passed the impugned order supports the order and submits that Section 27 (10) of the MCS, Act, clearly provides that if a member has taken a loan from a Society and he becomes a defaulter, he will have no right to vote in the affairs of the Society. Since the Petitioner's grandmother had admittedly availed loan from Respondent no. 7 – Society, which remain unpaid, which has now been inherited by the petitioner along with the land of his share in the partition with other legal heirs, makes him a ‘defaulter’ and consequently, ineligible for casting vote in the elections of Respondent no. 8 – Bank. He also supports the submission made by the Advocate for Respondent no. 7 – Society, by contending that Section 73 CA (1) (i) of the MCS, Act, provides that if a person is ‘defaulter’ of ‘any’ Society, he will not be eligible to be appointed, nominated, elected, co-opted etc. He submits that the decision of this Court in case of Damodar Shamrao Pande (supra), has already interpreted of Section 73 CA (1) (i) of the MCS, Act, which governs disqualification of the Committee and its members. He submitted that the case of the Petitioner would stand covered by the aforementioned decision, hence the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard all the respective Advocates and have gone through the documents as well as case laws placed on record with their assistance.

It is not in dispute that Respondent no. 6- Society, has forwarded the name of the Petitioner as its delegate to cast vote in the elections of Respondent no. 8 – Bank. Accordingly, the name of the Petitioner has been included at Serial no. 29 to represent Respondent no. 6 – Society, in the provisional voters' list of Respondent no. 8 – Bank. An objection has been raised to the inclusion of the Petitioner’s name in the provisional voters' list, on the ground that the Petitioner has inherited some land from his grandmother – Samindrabai, by virtue of partition effected under Section 85 of the Maharashtra land Revenue Code. The Petitioner has inherited this land along with other legal heirs with a liability of loan obtained from Respondent no. 7 society. It is alleged that, since the loan remained unpaid the Petitioner would fall within the definition of a ‘defaulter’ and, thus incurs disqualification for being a valid voter, requiring his name to be deleted from the provisional voters' list, for the general election of Respondent no. 8 – Bank. This objection has been upheld by Respondent no. 2 – District Co-operative Election Authority. Therefore, the question that arises is, whether a person who is a defaulter of some other Society of which he is not a member, can said to incur disqualification to be delegated to vote in the elections of Respondent no. 8 – Bank, on behalf of the Society of which he is a member and not a defaulter. Meaning thereby, only on account of being ‘defaulter’ of some other Society of which he is not a member, can a member of a Society be disqualified to vote.

Section 27 of the MCS, Act, governs the voting powers of members which read thus :

Section 27 (10) deals with voting rights of individual members in the elections of Society. It provides that if such member is a defaulter, he will have no right to vote in the affairs of such Society.

The word ‘defaulter’ used in this section borrows its meaning from the explanation provided in Section 73 CA (1) (i) of the MCS, Act, which governs the disqualification of Committee and its members. Section 73 CA of the MCS, Act, is reproduced here under which reads thus :

Upon careful reading of Section 73 CA (1) (i) of the MCS, Act, it is evident that, it governs the disqualification for being a member of a Committee of a Society. It provides that no person shall be eligible for being appointed, nominated, elected, co-opted for being a ‘member of a Committee’, if he is defaulter of any Society. The word ‘committee’ in the aforementioned Section is defined under Section 2(7)of the MCS, Act, which means the committee of Management or Board of Directors or a governing body, or other body of the society, by whatever name it is called which manages the affairs of the Society. Section 73 CA (1)(i) provides for disqualification of being a committee member, by way of election, nomination or co-opted, if member is a defaulter of the any society. The explanation of the word ‘defaulter’, is provided under clauses (I) which applies to the respective classes of societies, as given under the clause (a) to (f), according to the classification of the societies, such as, Primary agricultural credit society, housing society and the District central co-operative banks etc. In the Sub-clause (a) to (f) the statute has laid down, what would amount to default in each case.

Although the explanation of the word ‘Defaulter’ is given elaborately in sub-clause (a) to (f) as per classification of the society, but the fact remains that, Petitioner has been appointed as a delegate of the Respondent no. 6 – Society, to cast his vote in the elections that would elect the Committee members of Respondent no. 8 – Bank. Whereas the disqualification is attracted if a person is elected, appointed to be a member of a committee. It is nobody's case that the petitioner is nominated for his inclusion as a member of the committee. It is a admitted position that, Petitioner has been delegated to vote on behalf of Respondent no. 6 in the election of Respondent no. 8 – Bank.

So far as voting rights of members are concerned, it is governed by Section 27 of the MCS, Act. Section 27 (1) & (2) concerns the right of individual members of a society. Sub-section (3) regulates the voting rights of the Society, who have invested any part of its funds in the shares of federal Society, Such society can appoint one of its members to vote on behalf of the society. The only restriction or eligibility for right to vote on behalf of the society is contained in the two proviso to the Sub-Section (3). The first proviso makes a society eligible to vote in affairs of society only after completion of three years from date of its investment in the shares of such Federal society and the second proviso restricts the number of votes of a society to one, in case election is to the reserved seat under section 73-B of the Act. Thus, the restrictions on the voting rights of a member to the elections of federal society are provided in section 27(3) itself. On reading the Provision governing the voting rights of Member Societies to the election of Federal society, I do not find any other disqualification.

The voting rights of a member society to vote in the elections of federal Society are governed by section 27(3) of the Maharashtra cooperative Society act, 1960., Except the restrictions as provided in the proviso to the subsection, there is no other disqualification, provided in the subsection for a delegate of the member society to cast his vote. So far as Section 27 (10) is concerned it governs the individual rights of the members to vote in the elections of the Society, of which they are members. It provides that if a member has taken loan from the society, whenever he becomes defaulter, as provided in the explanation of clause(i) of Sub-Section (1) of section 73 CA of the MCS, Act, he will not have any right to vote in the affairs of the society. Only for the purpose of determining the status of a member as a defaulter, the explanation of defaulter is borrowed from the aforementioned provision.

In view of the the explanation, as observed here in above, the defaulter is classified according to the category of society. As far as applicability of the explanation of defaulter, in the instant case is concerned, it would be covered by the section 73CA (1) (f)(ii) of the MCS, Act, which is applicable to the District Central cooperative Bank or of the state cooperative bank. Clause (ii) of section 73CA (1) (f) of the MCS, Act, provides that, if a member is a person who is a defaulter of primary agricultural credit cooperative Society or is an office bearer of defaulting, primary agricultural cooperative credit Society , he becomes a defaulter. Since the Petitioner is not a defaulter of Respondent no. 6 – Society, the first part of this clause will not apply. Similarly since the Petitioner is also not an office bearer of the defaulting Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, thus the second part of clause (ii) will also not be attracted. Hence, the explanation of defaulter will not be applicable to the Petitioner. The disqualification alleged against the Petitioner, which is in his personal capacity, will be applicable only in case he contests the election to the managing committee or he is casting his vote, in the elections of the Society of which he is a member. This court in the case of Dhanraj, Dattatreya Patil (Supra), while deciding the applicability of Section 27(10) of the MCS, Act, in case the member has taken loan from the society and becomes defaulter, has already taken a view that if a member is a defaulter of some other society, he will not be disqualified from voting in the elections of the society of which he is a member and not defaulter.

In the present case also, the Petitioner is allegedly defaulter of some other Society, but he is neither casting this vote in the election of his parent society, nor contesting the election of managing committee. As such the disqualification provided under Section 27(10) as well as 73CA(1)(I)(f) of the MCS, Act, will not be attracted. The Petitioner having been appointed as delegate to cast vote for Respondent no. 6 – Society, Section 27(3) of the MCS, Act, will be applied, and the disqualification, if any incurred to Respondent no. 6 – Society, will apply to the Petitioner. Since none of the contesting respondents have raised any doubt about the entitlement of Respondent no. 6, to cast vote in elections of Respondent no. 8 – Bank, there is no disqualification attached to Respondent no. 6 to participate in election of Respondent no.8 and exercise it’s right through delegation of the Petitioner. The disqualification as a defaulter, if any, incurred by the Petitioner will be applicable only while he proposes to vote in the election of the Society of which he is a member, or proposes to become a committee member. The disqualification will not be applicable when the Petitioner is exercising his right in representative capacity as a delegate of Respondent no. 6.

In the wake of observations made here in above the order passed by Respondent no. 2 – District Election Officer and Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nashik, holding that since the Petitioner has inherited a part of land from his grandmother with the charge of Respondent no. 7, on account of unpaid loan, availed by the grandmother, the Petitioner would incur disqualification on account of being a defaulter, becomes unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms :