WP 4848 26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 60 WRIT PETITION NO. 4834 OF 2026 SHASHIKANT MADHUKAR PATIL VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 61 WRIT PETITION NO. 4836 OF 2026 NARAYAN RAMCHANDRA SATRE VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 62 WRIT PETITION NO. 4842 OF 2026 NARAYAN RAMCHANDRA SATRE VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 63 WRIT PETITION NO. 4843 OF 2026 ANANDA LAXMAN SAKPAL VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 64 WRIT PETITION NO. 4848 OF 2026 ANANDA LAXMAN SAKPAL VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 65 WRIT PETITION NO. 4849 OF 2026 INDRAJIT SANJAY PATIL VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. 1/7 WP 4848 26.odt … 66 WRIT PETITION NO. 4850 OF 2026 SUBHASH VITTHAL PAWAR VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 67 WRIT PETITION NO. 4851 OF 2026 SHASHIKANT MADHUKAR PATIL VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 68 WRIT PETITION NO. 4852 OF 2026 INDRAJIT SANJAY PATIL VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 69 WRIT PETITION NO. 4853 OF 2026 SUBHASH VITTHAL PAWAR VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 70 WRIT PETITION NO. 4854 OF 2026 UTTAM PANDURANG PAWAR VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 71 WRIT PETITION NO. 4855 OF 2026 UTTAM PANDUDRANG PAWAR VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … 72 WRIT PETITION NO. 4856 OF 2026 ANANDA LAXMAN SAKPAL 2/7 WP 4848 26.odt VERSUS DISTRICT CENTRE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SATARA THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. … Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Nikhil Wadikar a/w Adv.Dhananjay A. Utture Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Louis S. Shah i/by Mr. Rushabh D. Phade Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. S.S. Patwardhan (through V.C.) a/w Adv. Bhooshan Mandlik a/w Adv. Indrajit Chavan a/w Adv. Shivam M. Walekar and Adv. Sameeta Jankar Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Ruturaj P. Pawar ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 29.09.2026 FINAL ORDER : Heard both sides finally, considering exigency in the matter. 2. Relevant facts and circumstances are common and therefore the petitions are heard together and dealt with by common order. 3. The petitioners are questioning distinct orders dated 07.09.2026 passed by the Returning Officer, overruling their objection for inclusion of respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the voters list. The election process pertains to respondent no. 1 District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Satara. Respondent no. 2- Societies are Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies, which are its members. 4. The respondent no. 4 Election Officer on 30.06.2026 declared the programme for preparation of voters list. The Member Primary Co- operative Societies were called upon to submit resolution between 07.07.2026 to 05.08.2026. In the provisional voters list, respondent no. 2 and 3 were included, which was objected by the petitioners in writing within the stipulated period. The objections are overruled holding that they are eligible. 3/7 WP 4848 26.odt 5. Undisputedly, final voters list contained 104 members including respondent nos. 2 and 3 in each petition. The list of 19 member Primary Co-operative Societies is published, which are defaulters of respondent no. 1-Bank. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Wadikar submits that petitioners took timely objection against respondent nos. 2 and 3 for their deletion being defaulter and ineligible to participate in the election process, but the Returning Officer misconstrued the provisions of law clause 2 of letter dated 30.06.2026. It is submitted that by implication of Section 27(10) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (herein after referred to as the MCS Act), once the member Primary Society is disqualified being defaulter, consequentially, nominating any person on its behalf must be treated to be ineligible. It is submitted that explanation to Section 73(CA) is inclusive. Sub clause 2 of Clause (f) of the explanation to Section 73(CA)(1) covers even a member who is not office bearer of a defaulting society. It is submitted that the doctorine of mutuality is violated while interpreting the provision of law in the impugned order. Impugned order is stated to be perverse and unsustainable as it defies logic. 7. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents have raised preliminary objection for entertaining the petitions after commencement of the election process. The election programme is placed on record. It is submitted that impugned orders were passed on 07.09.2026 and petitions were filed on 23.09.2026 after period of 15 days. It is further submitted that intricate of law and facts are involved in the matter and proper remedy for the petitioner is to take recourse to substantive proceedings challenging the election. It is further submitted that the Returning Officer has rightly interpreted Section 27(10) and Section 73(CA). The defaulting Primary Agricultural Credit Societies is a separate class and therefore its participation or representation in the election process is not excluded by the statute. 4/7 WP 4848 26.odt 8. While replying the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Wadikar would vehemently submit that due to holidays and festival of Ganesh Ustav, it was not possible for the petitioners to approach promptly. After filing, the petitions are promptly circulated before the Court. It is submitted that without stalling the election process, interference of this Court is possible by excluding ineligible respondents from the voters list. There are 13 defaulter societies who are ineligible to participate in the process and the challenge raised in the petitions is of a public importance and need to be entertained relegating the parties to the election petition would perpetuate the illegality. 9. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and status of the election process, this Court has to be skeptical in causing any indulgence. I am guided by law laid down by High Court in the matter of Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 543 and that of Division Bench in case of Dattatraya Genaba Lole and others Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies and others; 2021 SCC Online Bom 4579. 10. The impugned orders are passed on 07.09.2026 by the Returning Officer and the petitions are filed on 23.09.2026, after a period of 15 days. No explanation is put forth in the petitions as to why those are not filed promptly. It was possible for them to approach the court immediately after 07.09.2026, as this Court was dealing with similar types of petitions of different Cooperative Societies. Considering the challenge raised to the orders passed by the Returning Officer under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2014, I am unable to accept the oral explanation tendered by the counsel for the petitioners. 11. It is relevant to notice that the final voters list was published on 11.09.2026. On 21.09.2026, the election programme was published by the competent authority. As per the programme, time for submitting the 5/7 WP 4848 26.odt nomination is prescribed as 25.09.2026 to 01.10.2026. The final list of nominated candidate is to be published on 01.10.2026. The scrutiny of the nomination is scheduled on 05.10.2026. The election process has commenced and interference at this stage of the proceeding is impermissible. The adjudication on merits of the matter is likely to disturb the election programme and likely to create complications. In such a situation, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion that too at the instance of the petitioners who approached the Court belatedly. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has painstakingly drawn my attention to Section 27(10) and Section 73(CA) of the MCS Act. He has tried to impress upon me that interpretation drawn by the Returning Officer is erroneous. Reliance is also made to the judgment of the coordinate bench in Writ Petition No. 5478/2026 to buttress that not only defaulting Primary Society is ineligible but its nominated member is also ineligible to be voter. 13. Learned counsel Mr. Patvardhan appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has also been drawn my attention to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of law. He refers to Rule 78 of the MCS Act to fortify the preliminary objection. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the division bench of this Court in case of Prakash Bhanudas Kavade and others Vs. Nashik District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd and others; 2015 (5) Mh.L.J. 14. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties I am of the considered view that intricate issues of interpretation of law is involved in the matter, which need to be dealt with in full fledged substantive proceedings. It is not possible for this Court to express any opinion. The issues raised in the petitions are kept open for agitating them before appropriate form in election petition. 15. The Returning Officer has a summary jurisdiction while dealing with the objections under Rule 11 of Rules of 2014. The intricate questions on 6/7 WP 4848 26.odt facts and law cannot be adjudicated in such enquiry. I do not find that any mandatory procedure is violated by him or impugned orders are against principles of natural justice. Prima facie, I am of the view that no glaring perversity or illegality is noticed in the impugned order. It is clarified that no final opinion is expressed on the submissions of the parties and the observations recorded today would not be an impediment for deciding the challenge, if raised before competent forum. 16. For the reasons stated above, I find that no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is permissible for them to agitate their grievance by challenging the impugned orders before competent forum after conclusion of the election process. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 7/7