67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4676 OF 2026 Kundlik Shamrao Mulik And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus District Co-operative Election Authority Alias District Deputy Registrar And Ors. ...Respondents …... Adv. Kalpesh Uttam Patil a/w Adv. Digambar Vilas Jadhav and Adv. Rushikesh R. Chavan, Advocate for the Petitioners. Adv. Ruturaj P. Pawar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Adv. Prashant Bhavake, for Respondent Nos.3 and 5. ….. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER : Heard the litigating sides finally. 2. Being aggrieved by concurrent finding of facts recorded by Cooperative Court in allowing Case No. 106 of 2022 and thereafter dismissing Appeal No. 78 of 2025 by the Cooperative Appellate Court, in setting aside election of the petitioners, petition is preferred. 3. Petitioners are original respondent Nos. 4 to 13, whose election was questioned by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in Cooperative Case No. 106 of 2022. The election were conducted for the tenure 2021–2022 to 2026–2027. Its result was declared on 05.12.2021 declaring petitioners ZIP 1 of 6 67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc and others as the returned candidates. The original respondent Nos. 14 to 16 were returned uncontested. The final voter list was prepared on 14.10.2021. The report was submitted by Deputy Registrar on 22.11.2021 disclosing that 23 voters were bogus, 11 were eligible but excluded from the list, and 17 were dead. In this backdrop, the submissions need to be appreciated. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report dated 22.11.2021 submitted by Deputy Registrar is inconsequential and could not have been taken into account because the voter list was finalized on 14.10.2021. It is submitted that the decisions of both Courts below are rendered without hearing those 23 voters who are castigated to be bogus. It is further submitted that the provisional voter list was not ever challenged by the respondents and the respondents are estopped from raising any grievance in the election petition. 5. It is further submitted that Cooperative Court had no jurisdiction to consider as to whether the voters were bogus and as to whether genuine ones were excluded. It is further submitted that without examining register in Form ‘I’ and ‘J’, half-heartedly the decisions are rendered which are perverse. It is prayed that matter should have been remanded by the Appellate Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that Cooperative Court had jurisdiction under Section 91 of the ZIP 2 of 6 67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of convenience and brevity) to examine as to whether the members were eligible or not. The concurrent finding of facts have been recorded, which are well-founded. It is further submitted that term of the petitioners is expiring in December - 2026 and no interference is called for. 7. The Appellate Court has recorded finding that 23 voters were illegally enrolled and they were not made party. The report was submitted by Deputy Registrar on 22.11.2021, which is fallout of the inquiry conducted by him in pursuance of the complaint received for illegal enrollment. The report has not been challenged by the petitioners. The Cooperative Court is empowered to look into prima facie material regarding membership of the voter. They cannot be said to be necessary parties for adjudicating the issue as to the validity of the election. No relief could have been claimed against them. I am of the considered view that they are neither necessary party nor proper party to decide the controversy. I find no merit in the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Kalpesh Patil. 8. The voter list was finalized on 14.10.2021 in which 23 bogus voters are incorporated. It is always open for the Court to examine eligibility of the voters. The inquiry contemplated at the stage of preparation of the voters list is summary in nature. The objective in- ZIP 3 of 6 67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc depth inquiry can be conducted in a dispute under Section 91 of the Act. If in the full-fledged trial it is revealed that couple of voters are bogus, or couple of them are genuine but not included in the list, the earlier finalized list would not be an impediment. 9. Both Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of facts. Both the Courts below have taken plausible and reasonable view. The election of the petitioners is vitiated for not following due procedure of law. I do not find any perversity or patent illegality in those findings. 10. Both courts below have recorded findings in respect of the eligibility of those 23 members considering the audit report and oral evidence. The register in Form ‘I’ and ‘J’ cannot be the only evidence to disclose illegal enrollment or illegal exclusion of 11 members. The necessary documentary evidence has been considered for excluding eligible voters and including ineligible persons. I find no reasons to interfere in the impugned judgment and orders. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the case of Devaraj Bharath Bhushan Versus K. Moorthy and Ors.1 to buttress that once the suit is found to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the question of deciding other issues would not arise. I have already observed that the bogus voters cannot be said to be necessary parties for 1 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 172. ZIP 4 of 6 67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc deciding the issue germane in the dispute. The judgment cited would not be applicable to the present case. 12. Undisputedly, the term of the present body is expiring in December - 2026. The election is vitiated due to bogus voting and exclusion of eligible persons. No prejudice would be caused to anybody if the petitioners are kept away from administration. They have almost enjoyed whole tenure. On that account also, I do not propose to interfere in the impugned judgment. 13. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] 14. After pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for continuation of the order of status quo for the period of four weeks, so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Apex Court. It is submitted that the status quo was in operation till 21.09.2026, which is reflected from the operative part of the impugned judgment dated 18.08.2026. 15. The request is opposed by the respondents on the ground that both the Courts below have decided against the petitioner. In any case, the term was to expire in December - 2026. The copy of order dated 08.09.2026 is placed on record to show that new committee is ZIP 5 of 6 67-WP-4676-2026 (c).doc appointed under Section 77(A)(1)(ii) of the Act and the committee is expected to take charge today. 16. Both the Courts below have concurrently decided against the petitioners. The new committee is supposed to take charge as per order dated 08.09.2026 passed by Assistant Registrar, Kolhapur. I am not inclined to accept the request of the petitioners. It stands rejected. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] ZIP 6 of 6