(1) wp-5960-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5960 OF 2026 PRASHANT ANNASAHEB JADHAV AND ANR. VERSUS THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY, M.S. PUNE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS. ... Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 16th JUNE, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd JUNE, 2026. ORDER:- 1. The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 11.06.2026 passed by respondent no.2 District Co-operative Election Officer/Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, whereby respondent no.2 refused to include name of petitioner no.1 in voters list for election of respondent no.3 Parbhani District Central Co-operative Bank (for short ‘PDCC Bank’). 2. The respondent no.2 issued Notification dated 20.03.2026 calling upon member Societies to submit Resolution nominating their delegates for inclusion in voters list for election for term of 2026-2031. The petitioner no.2 Society passed Resolution and nominated Mr. Pankaj Appasaheb Jadhav as delegate of Society. Accordingly, his name was included in voters list. However, on 2026:BHC-AUG:24635 (2) wp-5960-2026.odt objection that delegate is office bearer of defaulter society, his name was deleted vide order dated 28.05.2026 sustaining objection regarding his disqualification. In aforesaid backdrop, on 08.06.2026, petitioner no.2 Society passed another Resolution nominating petitioner no.1 as representative of Society. The said Resolution was submitted to Assistant Registrar on 08.06.2026. However, respondent no.2 refused to include name of newly nominated representative. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Hon, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that Rule 10(4) of Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (for short ‘MCS Rules, 2014’) permits society to change name of its representative in event representative is found to be disqualified. Such change is permitted up to five days before last date of making nomination. As such, there was no impediment in accepting nomination of petitioner no.1 in terms of Resolution of Society, since earlier delegate was found disqualified. He would submit that impugned order has taken away legal right of petitioner no.2 Society to participate in election. 4. Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.3 PDCC Bank supports impugned order. According to him, contingencies stipulated in sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of MCS Rules, 2014 are not discernible in facts of present case. The (3) wp-5960-2026.odt respondent no.2 has rightly considered object and purport of aforesaid Rule and held that Resolution passed by petitioner no.2 Society cannot be acted upon. 5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, apparently there is no dispute on factual aspects of matter. The controversy is only limited as to interpretation of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of MCS Rules, 2014. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 reads thus: “10. Particulars to be included in the provisional list of voters for the societies having society or society and individuals as members. (4) A society which has communicated the name of its representative shall, by like resolution, be permitted to change the name of its representative only in case of death of the representative or resignation by the representative or if such representative is found to be disqualified on adjudication by competent authority under any of the provisions of the Act, Rules, bye-laws or where there is newly elected committee of the member society not later than five days before the last date for making nominations.” 6. Careful reading of aforesaid provision depicts that certain contingencies are taken into account whereby change in name of representative of Society can be permitted. The contingencies are as under: (i) death of representative; (ii) resignation by representative; (iii) if representative is found to be disqualified on adjudication by Competent Authority under any of provision of Act, Rules or Bye-laws and (4) wp-5960-2026.odt (iv) where there is newly elected Committee of member Society. 7. In present case, Clause (iii) is pressed into service. According to petitioner Society, since representative/delegate who was nominated by first Resolution of Society is held to be disqualified resulting into deletion of name of Society from provisional voters list, Society is entitled to nominate qualified representative and participate in election. This Court finds that condition stipulated in Clause No.(iii) would arise only when representative is found to be disqualified on adjudication by Competent Authority under any of provision of Act. Apparently, such disqualification must surface post nomination of delegate. The Competent Authority under Act or Rules must declare nominated delegate disqualified after his nomination. The provision clearly intends to grant benefit to Society whose representative is declared disqualified by Competent Authority after his nomination as delegate of Society. 8. In present case, petitioner’s delegate was already disqualified being defaulter at the time of passing Resolution by Society nominating him as their delegate. It is not case where Competent Authority under Act has declared him disqualified post his nomination as delegate. The words “found to be disqualified on adjudication by Competent Authority” cannot be construed to mean deletion of name of disqualified representative/delegate from (5) wp-5960-2026.odt provisional voters list. The Election Officer, who deals with objection on voters list is not Authority who is competent to declare disqualification of member of Society. Therefore, there is no question of any adjudication on disqualification by him. The provision contemplates declaration of disqualification on adjudication by Competent Authority. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that only because first representative of petitioner Society was found to be ineligible by Election Officer, which resulted into deletion of his name from voters list can be construed as person disqualified on adjudication by Competent Authority under provisions of Act and Rules. 9. The disqualification for inclusion in voters list occurs immediately on default in repayment of loan or dues and it does not require declaration by Competent Authority under Act and Rules. Section 27 of MCS Act, 1960 operates in different arena. It does not speaks about incurring disqualification of member of Society. It only deals with voting right of member. If member becomes defaulter of Society, which is essentially pre-election situation, voting right is taken away and, therefore, such disqualification does not require adjudication by competent authority for declaring delegate disqualified. Therefore, this Court finds that where name of delegate has been deleted being defaulter of Society, Society would loos its right to participate in election and (6) wp-5960-2026.odt cannot take resort to sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of MCS Rules, 2014 to seek inclusion of another delegate who is nominated by subsequent Resolution. In that view of matter, this Court finds no reason to entertain Writ Petition. 10. In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/June-2026