1 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12432 OF 2026 RAJENDRA PARATAPRAO NIKAT AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe. AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali S. Chaudhari. Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S. K. Kadam. Advocate for Respondent No.7 : Mr. Shekade Shashikant E. ... CORAM : MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 22.09.2026 F INAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioners are raising challenge to the order dated 10.09.2026 passed by Respondent No.2 - The District Election Officer @ Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik, whereby the objection raised by the petitioners before Respondent No.2 for deletion of name of Respondent No.7 from the voters list as a delegate of Respondent No.5 to participate in the general election of Respondent No.6 - Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as “ADCC Bank) has been rejected. 2. Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for the petitioners submits that the resolution forwarding the name of Respondent No.7, is 2026:BHC-AUG:43663 2 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt passed by the Managing Committee of Respondent No.5 Society. In the meeting of the committee two names were proposed. Among which, the name of Respondent No.7 was forwarded, in view of the majority votes cast in his favour. The name of Respondent No.7, was forwarded as a delegate in the elections of Respondent No.6 - Bank for the year 2026-2031. He submits that two members amongst the seven, who cast vote in favour of Respondent No.7, were in fact defaulters of Respondent No.5 - Society. A communication addressed by the Secretary of Respondent No.5 to the Assistant Registrar, Karjat, District Ahmednagar, dated 27.07.2026, is placed on record which discloses that, they have become defaulters on 31.03.2025. Therefore, a proposal was moved by the secretary of the Society, before the Assistant Registrar, Karjat for taking appropriate action against the two defaulters. 3. He submits that the resolution was passed by Managing Committee of Respondent No.5 - Society on 08.07.2026. The two members were already declared as defaulters on 31.03.2025. Having been declared as defaulters, they incurred disqualification under Section 73CA(1)(i)(f)(ii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent No.7 being elected by the defaulters is disqualified for 3 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt representing the Respondent no. 5 - Society. On account of casting of vote by the defaulting member a resolution passed by Respondent No.5 - Society stands vitiated, hence the name of Respondent No.7 is required to be deleted from the provisional voters list. 4. He has raised the grievance before Respondent No.2 - District Election Officer, bringing all the aforementioned facts to his notice. However, vide order dated 10.09.2026, the Objection Application No.28/2026 filed by him has been rejected by the Respondent no. 2 - District Election Officer, holding that the meeting of Respondent No.5 - Society dated 08.07.2026, resolving to forward the name of Respondent No.7, raises challenge to the validity of the decision and the resolution passed by the Managing Committee, remedy against which lies with the competent Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In absence of any decision by the competent Court on the issue about the validity of the resolutions and in absence of any interim order passed by such Court, the objection raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained. After recording the aforementioned observations, the Respondent no. 2 has rejected the objection filed by the 4 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt petitioners referring to Rule 11(3) of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. 5. He further submits that the petitioners have simultaneously filed a complaint before the Assistant Registrar co-operative societies bringing it to his notice that, the two members of the Managing Committee being defaulters are not eligible to cast their vote in the meeting of Managing Committee for selecting the name of the delegate, to represent Respondent No.5 - Society. He submits that after the decision of the Respondent no. 2, dated 10.09.2026, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karjat has also passed an order declaring the two members of the Managing Committee namely Mr. Rajendra Prataprao Nikat and Pradip Vishnu Anarse as ‘defaulters’ and consequently ineligible to be Members of the Managing Committee of Respondent No.5 - Society. With a further declaration that on account of the disqualification incurred by the two members of the Committee, two posts of Respondent No.5 - Society’s Managing committee have fallen vacant. 6. He, therefore, submits that the status of the members of the Managing Committee who were defaulters has now been confirmed as ‘disqualified’ to be member of Managing 5 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt committee, by the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Society, Karjat vide order dated 16.09.2026. Consequently, on account of the participation of the two members in the meeting, who were ineligible to vote in support of the resolution passed in favour of Respondent No. 7 vitiated the decision of the meeting. In support of his submission that, the order of declaration of being a ‘defaulter’, is not the date relevant for being considered to be a ‘defaulter’ but the day of actual default by a person is relevant, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.13665 of 2024 in Vilas Limbaji Wayal Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar Co-op. Societies, Chh. Sambhajinagar. In view of the observations in the said order, according to him, Respondent No.2 has not considered the issue about disqualification in its proper perspective, while turning down the objection raised by the petitioners. 7. Per Contra Learned advocate Mr. Kadam appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that, the petitioners are raising disputed questions based on the resolution passed in the meeting of the society dated 08.07.2026. Such disputed questions can only be decided in a dispute raised under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. He further 6 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt raises an objection that, although the reliance is placed on disqualification of two members of the Managing Committee by the petitioners. The petitioners have not added them as party to the Writ Petition. He submits that unless the resolution forwarding the name of Respondent No.7, is set aside by deciding its validity. Respondent No.2/Authority cannot act on the objection raised by the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by Respondent No.2 is perfectly in consonance of the provisions of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act and Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Elections to Committee) Rules, 2014. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shekade appearing for Respondent No.7 submits that name of Respondent no. 7 has been forwarded by a majority resolution, which is taken into account by Respondent No.2 while rejecting the objection. It is rightly observed by Respondent No.2 that, the petitioners will have to raise dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for challenging the resolution of the Managing Committee. The Respondent No.2 is not empowered to decide the validity of the resolution nominating him to cast vote on behalf of Respondent No.5 - Society. He has further drawn my attention to the minutes of the meeting which discloses that 7 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt among the two names proposed in the meeting of the Managing Committee, only one name was to be, forwarded therefore the voting was conducted through secret ballot. Thereafter, the result was declared by the Secretary of Respondent No.5 - Society. The minutes of the meeting shows that seven votes have been cast in favour of Respondent Nos.7, and six votes were cast in favour of other candidate Satish Maruti Nikat. Considering the majority votes cast in favour of Respondent No.7, his name was selected to be forwarded to represent Respondent No.5/Society. 9. I have heard the respective parties and I have also gone through the documents placed on record as well as the decisions of this Court relied by the petitioners. The case of the petitioner is straight forward. He claims that two members of the Managing Committee namely, Pradip Vishnu Anarse and Dattatraya Dhanraj Nighol were already defaulters on 31.03.2025 on account of failure to repay the loan of the society availed by them. The proposal was already forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karjat by the Secretary of Respondent No.5, for taking appropriate action against these two members of the Managing Committee. The resolution which nominated Respondent No.7 as its delegate 8 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt has been passed on 08.07.2026. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the day on which the resolution has been passed by the Managing Committee, the two members were already defaulters and therefore, they were disqualified for participating in the meeting of the Managing Committee. 10. Section 27 deals with the voting powers of the members. Section 27(10) provides that, if a member has taken a loan from the society, such member shall, whenever he is a defaulter as provided in the Explanation to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 73CA, have no right to vote in the affairs of the society. 11. In view of Section 27(10), the two members who were defaulters were not eligible to participate in the meeting of the society, which resolved to forward name of a delegate to cast its vote in the elections of Respondent No.6 - Bank. Similarly, Section 73CA provides for disqualification of its committee and its members. This Section also provides that no person shall be eligible to be appointed, nominated, elected, co-opted, or to continue as a member of the committee if he is a defaulter of any society. The word ‘defaulter’ in context with each category of society is explained in clause (a) to (f) of Section 73 CA(1). Respondent No.5/Society being a Primary 9 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, will be governed by Clause (f), which reads thus : “(f) in the case of District Central Co-operative Bank or of the State Co-operative Bank, a member, if he, - (i) is a person who represents a society other than a primary agricultural credit co-operative society on the board of a Districct Central Co-operative Bank or the State Co- operative Bank, if the society to whom he represents has committed a default towards the payments of such Bank for a period exceeding ninety days; (ii) is a person who is a defaulter of a primary agricultural credit co-operative society or is an office bearer of a defaulting primary agricultural co-operative credit society; (iii) is a person who represents a society whose Managing Committee is superseded.” 12. The case of the two members, who are defaulters would stand squarely covered by Section 73 CA (1)(f)(ii). Since the two members are defaulters of the Primary Agricultural Co- operative Credit Society, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies has already taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the Respondent no. 5 and passed an order declaring the two members of the Managing Committee to be disqualified for holding the membership of the Managing Committee vide order dated 16.09.2026. Irrespective of the aforementioned fact about the disqualification incurred by two members of the committee amongst the thirteen members, the fact remains 10 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt that in the meeting for passing resolution, to forward the name of a delegate to vote on behalf of Respondent No.5, the voting was done by ‘Secret Ballot’. Since, there were two candidates whose names were proposed by the members and one name was to be forwarded. A secret ballot was conducted in which Respondent No.7 has secured seven votes while other candidate has secured six votes. In this peculiar situation, the question that arises before this Court is that, “whether it can be ascertained from the minutes of the meeting as to who are the seven members that have cast their votes in favour of Respondent No.7. According to the minutes of meeting, the votes have been cast by a secret ballot, therefore, it is unascertainable as to in whose favour the two defaulting members have cast their votes. Unless this fact is ascertained, the resolution delegating Respondent No.7 to vote on behalf of Respondent No.5 – Society, cannot be set aside. Since it is not ascertainable from the record that two defaulters have cast their votes in favour of Respondent No.7, therefore, in my opinion, the order passed by Respondent No.2/District Election Officer rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners cannot be set aside by directing to delete the name of Respondent No.7 from the voters list for the ensuing elections of Respondent No. 6 – Bank, for the period of 2026-2031. 11 WP.12432-26 (final order).odt 13. In the wake of the observations made hereinabove, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.) ... vmk/-