1 902) WP 7695-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7695 OF 2026 RAM ANANTRAO DEOSARKAR VS THE STATE OF MAHA., THR. ITS SECY. DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION AND TEXTILES, MUMBAI AND ORS. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri A.B.Patil, Advocate a/w. Shri Raunak Kurani, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. K.P.Marpakwar, AGP for respondent/State. Shri Huzan Bhumgara, Advocate a/b. S/Shri/Ms. Pradeep Mane, Disha C. Kamwani, Desai and Diwanji for respondent no. 2/RBI Shri C.S. Kaptan, Sr. Advocate a/b. Shri R.S.Kalangiwale, Advocate for respondent no. 5. CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : 01/10/2026 Heard. 2. In this petition, the issue is whether the respondent no. 5 can contest the election and continue to hold the post of Director after having held the said post for a continuous period of 10 years. 3. The affidavit filed by the Reserve Bank of India, in clear terms, states that, as per Section 10-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short, “B.R.Act”), no Director of a Banking Company, other than its Chairman or whole-time Director, by whatever name called, shall hold office continuously for a period exceeding eight years, and in the case of a Co-operative Bank, for a period exceeding ten years. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 5 has continuously held the post of Director from 2026:BHC-NAG:13116-DB 2 902) WP 7695-26.odt 21st December, 2007 to 10th September, 2020 and thereafter, from 4th January, 2021 to 3rd January, 2026. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 5 is, therefore, disqualified even to contest the election. 5. The petitioner accordingly raised an objection before the Returning Officer, which came to be dismissed on the ground that there is no provision such as Section 10-A of the B.R. Act in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to disqualify the respondent no. 5. It was further observed that though Section 10-A of the B.R. Act prohibits any Director to hold the post of Director for more than 10 years, the question would be of authority who would disqualify the respondent no. 5. Accordingly, he rejected the objection of the petitioner. 6. In the above-referred backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court, not challenging the rejection of objection of the petitioner to the nomination of respondent no. 5 or the acceptance of nomination of respondent no. 5. However, a prayer made is to direct the respondent - Reserve Bank of India to decide the representation and restrain/prohibit the respondent no. 5 from contesting the election to the Executive Committee of the respondent no. 6 - Yavatmal District Central Co-operative Bank. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court not to allot a symbol to respondent no. 5 and not to allow him to contest the election by exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction till the 3 902) WP 7695-26.odt decision by RBI, we are unable to accept such prayer for the reasons: firstly, once the election process is initiated, this Court should be slow in entertaining any dispute relating to the election, except of having extraordinary circumstances. Secondly, once the nomination of respondent no. 5 is accepted, he cannot be prohibited from contesting the election until his nomination is rejected. 8. In this backdrop, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondent - Reserve Bank of India to decide the representation dated 22/09/2026, within a period of three weeks from today. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to communicate this order to the respondent no. 2. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) B.T.K. Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/10/2026 14:44:24