Vinod S/o Pandurang Kate and Another vs The State of Maharashtra and Others

Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Hon for the petitioners, learned Sr. Advocate for the intervenors and learned AGP for the respondent-State.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

The challenge in short in the present petition is to an order dated 20.08.2026 passed by the learned Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Muktainagar. The learned Assistant Registrar, by way of the impugned communication has directed the Chairman/Secretary of petitioner No.2 – Society communicating that Resolution dated 20.08.2026 passed by the Society is cancelled. It is further directed to pass a fresh resolution nominating a representative for the purpose of election to Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (“JDCCBL” for short). It was done on the complaint of the intervenors, who are now added as the respondents.

Facts in short are that the District Co-operative Election Officer and Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik issued a communication dated 03.08.2026 to the Co-operative Societies in Jalgaon district. It is stated in the communication that for term of 2026-2031, the Board of Directors is to be elected to JDCCBL. The societies were asked to nominate a representative to vote in the said election by passing necessary resolutions. It was directed to submit the resolution and the nomination on or before 02.09.2026 through the Assistant Registrar. Petitioner No.2 – Society, pursuant to communication from District Co-operative Election Officer, passed a resolution nominating petitioner No.1 as its representative. It is seen from the impugned communication that the intervenors filed the objection with the Assistant Registrar stating that no resolution as such is passed and the communication needs to be cancelled. It is on that, the Assistant Registrar has issued the impugned communication. The petitioners are therefore before this Court.

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hon forcefully argued that the Assistant Registrar is not the Authority to consider the legality, illegality or otherwise of the resolution passed by the Society. The subject matter clearly pertains to a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “MCS Act”). Since it is a matter of election, at the most objection could have been raised before the Election Officer. In no case, the Registrar, Assistant Registrar or any other Authority would get jurisdiction to decide the validity of the resolution. In any case, the Asstt. Registrar does not possess the power to cancel such resolution. He thus submits that the Assistant Registrar has usurped the powers of other Authorities and has arbitrarily and illegally issued the impugned communication. Mr. Hon also submits that power of Assistant Registrar is only to collect nomination, record etc. and to forward it to the District Election Officer.

By way of amendment the petitioners sought also to set aside notice dated 25.08.2026 calling a meeting on 30.08.2026 for deciding name of the delegate of the Society and agenda. In that view he has added prayer clause to quash and set aside the scheduled agenda of meeting dated 30.08.2026 of the petitioner-Society.

Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Deshpande for the intervenors with equal force opposes this petition. He submits that applicant No.1 himself happens to be a Chairman of the Society. There are total seven applicants. Total 13 members are entitled to vote in the meeting. Out of 13 now seven are before this Court, who had made the complaint with the Registrar. It is thus clear that they were the persons who had opposed the passing of the resolution. However, the Secretary of the Society fled away with the record of the society and prepared fabricated record and resolution. He points out that in the resolution it is stated that the resolution is passed by majority. However, no number of votes in favour and against are mentioned. While forwarding the resolution, same is shown to have been passed unanimously. Both these things cannot go together. That itself is sufficient to show that the resolution is bogus. He also brought to the notice that now FIR is registered and that fact is accepted even in the petition and pursuant to that now record is seized on 21.08.2026 by the Police. Considering all the above, he submits that it is abundantly clear that the resolution is false and fabricated one. So far as power of the Registrar, he relies upon Rule 10 (4) of the Maharashtra State Co-operative (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. Though in the said rule, specific word “Assistant Registrar” is not used. However, word used “Competent Authority” in the said rule will take within its compass “Assistant Registrar” as well in absence of definition of “Competent Authority”. The word “Competent Authority” will have to be given a wider meaning, in the facts of the case. In the present case he submits that since the Assistant Registrar is vested with the power to forward the nomination by consideration and for that purpose he has to verify the minutes of the meeting, the notice to hold meeting, attendance register of the members of the Society and original record, as is appearing in communication dated 03.08.2026 passed by the learned District Co-operative Election Officer and the District Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The job of the registrar is not only of a postman but is expected to apply mind and verify the record. If this is so, then the Assistant Registrar necessarily has the power to cancel the resolution. He prays for rejection of the petition.

Learned AGP is not in a position to justify the order on merits. So far as power of the Registrar is concerned, also he has very little say in justification of the impugned order. He, however, submits that the Registrar has considered the allegations made in the complaint by the intervenors. It is only thereon, the communication is issued. He prays for passing appropriate orders.

During the course of arguments, learned Sr. Advocate has relied upon judgment in the case of Kamlabai Vitthal Rohankar Vs. Additional Collector and Others, 2007 (3) BOMCR 630. This judgment is in respect of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committees) Rules, 1971. Though it is in respect of earlier Rules of 1971, it would be of some relevance. In the said case, it is held that the Assistant Registrar or Dy. Registrar has no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity of the meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society. The validity of the Meeting of the Managing Committee can be challenged under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before the Co-operative Court. Even the Collector as a Returning Officer also is not empowered or entitled to go into the validity and legality of the meeting of the managing committee of the Cooperative Society. It is thus clear that unless specific powers are conferred upon the Authority, no authority can exercise the jurisdiction. Rule 5 (2) of 1971 Rules reads as under :-

One of us [Justice Kishore C. Sant], while sitting singly had an occasion to deal with Rule 10(4) of the Rules, 2014 in the case of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd.Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2023) 6 Mh.L.J. 559. In the said judgment also it is held that unless one of the contingencies given in Rule 10(4) is shown, it is not permissible for the Society to pass resolution after specific period. There no nomination was done. It was prayed that after due date permission be granted to pass a resolution to nominate a person.

This Court has anxiously heard the submissions and considered the provisions. It is clear that the elections are conducted by the Election Officer appointed by the Authorities. During the course of hearing, it has also come on record that five members have approached the Co-operative Court by filing dispute under section 91 of the MCS Act, which is admittedly pending. The dispute as regards validity of the resolution is necessarily a dispute falling under section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act and there is no dispute. The submission of learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Deshpande is only that considering facts of the case and considering wording of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10, the Competent Authority necessarily need to be taken to mean Assistant Registrar also by giving wider meaning.

Rule 10 falls in part III of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 which deals with preparation of electoral rolls. Rules of 2014 do not define the word “Competent Authority”. Since the Rules itself are for the purpose of conduct of election, it is very natural that it is only the Election Officer, who has to deal with the complaint, preparation of electoral roll etc. For the purpose of better understanding, Rules 10 (3) and (4) are quoted below :-

From sub-rule (4) it is clear that it provides for only following contingencies, in which fresh resolution is required to be passed. The circumstances are (i) In case of death of representative or resignation by the representative (ii) Representative is found to be disqualified on adjudication by the competent authority under any of the provisions of the Acts, Rule, By-laws etc. (iii) Where there is newly elected committee of the Member Society, not later than five days from last date of making nomination.

Even if argument of learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Deshpande is accepted, case needs to be fallen in either of the categories given in sub-rule (4). Looking to the scheme of the Rules and Rule 10, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the word “Competent Authority” will not include the word “Assistant Registrar”.

Ultimately, in the present case, what is tried to be disputed is nomination of the member and the resolution to that effect. As it is already come on record that for that purpose, dispute is already pending before the Co-operative Court. Even otherwise, there is no specific power conferred upon the Registry to deal with such situation and to go into the matter of legality or otherwise of the resolution passed by the Society.

In the case of nomination, the Appropriate Authority would be returning Officer, but in the said rule the contingency of the adjudication of disqualification was not considered, which has now been inserted in new Rule. In respect of adjudication of the disqualification same is to be made by the Co-operative Court. In the facts of the present case the Competent Authority would be Co-operative Court and certainly not the Assistant Registrar in view of the subsequent developments.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) and amended prayer clause (BB).