1 904 wp 3174.22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3174 OF 2022 Satish Parasram Shinde .. Petitioner Versus The State Cooperative Election Authority and others .. Respondents Shri Mayur V. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri S. T. Joshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 3. Shri P. S. Shendurnikar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. Shri Sharad V. Natu, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. ORDER : . Present petition is filed in order to challenge order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 as Returning Officer appointed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, whereby the nomination of the petitioner for the election to the post of director of a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 namely, Sahkari Audyogik Vasahat Ltd., Pachora (hereinafter referred to as “Industrial Society” for brevity) came to be rejected. As also the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 dismissing the Appeal No. 01 of 2022 arising out of the said order 2026:BHC-AUG:46834 2 904 wp 3174.22 dated 04.02.2022. 2. Election programme for the aforesaid society was published on 21.01.2022. The name of petitioner was nominated by Girnai Nagari Co-operative Patsantha Ltd. for inclusion in the voter’s list of the Industrial Co-operative Societies Constituency. The petitioner accordingly filed nomination form for being elected as director of the Co-operative Society from the Industrial Cooperative Societies Constituency. The respondent No. 5 raised an objection to the nomination form filed by the petitioner on two grounds namely (i) the society who has nominated the petitioner for contesting the election of director from industrial cooperative societies constituency was not eligible for contesting the election in view of bye No. 40-A of the bye-laws of the Industrial Society and (ii) that the proposer and seconder on the nomination form of the petitioner were not from the Industrial Cooperative Societies Constituency. The respondent No. 2 – Returning Officer rejected the nomination form of the petitioner vide order dated 04.02.2022 on the ground that the proposer and seconder were not from the industrial cooperative societies constituency. Being aggrieved by the said order rejecting his nomination form, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 152-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred as to the M.C.S. Act for brevity) before the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.02.2022 on the ground that the proposer and seconder on the nomination form of the petitioner were not from the industrial 3 904 wp 3174.22 cooperative societies constituency and also on the ground that Girnai Nagari Co-op. Patsastha was not eligible to nominate any person to contest the election of director from industrial cooperative societies constituency, since Girnai Society was not running any industry. In holding so reliance is placed on bye-law No. 40-A of the industrial society. The said order is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 3. The contention of Mr. Mayur Salunke, learned advocate for the petitioner is that only one society was included in the final voters list of industrial co-operative societies. Learned advocate contends that the proposer and seconder, therefore, could not be secured from the industrial cooperative societies constituency. His contention is that the dominant intention of the bye-laws is to provide representation to a cooperative society in the board of directors of the industrial society and, therefore, merely because the proposer and seconder were not from the same constituency, the nomination form could not have been rejected. Learned advocate vehemently argues that the petitioner could not be expected to fulfill the said condition which was an impossibility. Learned advocate places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Punjabrao Appasaheb Pol Vs. Assistant Registrar Co- operative Societies and the Returning Officer and others reported in 2021(6) AIR Bom R 365 in support of his contention. With respect to the appellate order the contention of the learned advocate is that since the nomination form was rejected only on one ground namely the proposer and seconder were not from the industrial 4 904 wp 3174.22 cooperative societies constituency, the appellate authority could not have rejected the nomination form on a ground other than on which the nomination form was rejected by the Returning Officer. The contention is that the scope of appeal under Section 152-A of the M. C. S. Act is limited to examine the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Returning Officer. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Murlidhar Rangrao Gaikwad Vs. State Co-operative Election Authority and others reported in 2025(4) Bom.C.R. 380, the learned advocate would contend that the scope of interference in an appeal under Section 152-A of the M. C. S. Act is limited to examining as to whether the returning officer has followed correct legal process, acted reasonably and did not violate any rules of natural justice while deciding the issue of validity or otherwise of the nomination form. The learned advocate contends that disputed questions of facts cannot be looked into while deciding appeal under Section 152-A of the M. C. S. Act. 4. Per contra Mr. Natu, learned advocate for the respondent No. 5 would contend that in order to contest the election of director of Industrial Society, the petitioner will have to establish that he fulfills the requisite eligibility criteria to contest the said election. The learned advocate draws attention of this Court to bye-law No. 40-A to contend that only a society which is engaged in an industrial activity is eligible to contest the election of the post of director from the industrial cooperative societies constituency. The learned advocate would contend that 5 904 wp 3174.22 undisputedly Girnai Nagari Co-operative Pat Sanstha does not run any industry and as such does not fulfill the eligibility criteria. 5. Mr. Natu, learned advocate would further contend that even if the contention with respect to interpretation of Sec. 152-A of the M. C. S. Act is accepted, this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction cannot declare an ineligible candidate as eligible by setting aside order, if the petitioner is unable to satisfy the basic eligibility for being elected as a director of industrial cooperative society constituency. 6. Perusal of bye-laws of the society would indicate that as per bye-law No. 5, any cooperative society is eligible to be a member of the Industrial Society. Perusal of bye-law No. 40-A will demonstrate that out of thirteen posts of directors, for one post is earmarked for industrial cooperative society constituency. The relevant clause provides that a cooperative society who is member of the industrial society shall be eligible to contest the election of director provided it runs an industry. Perusal of by- law No. 3 will demonstrate that the main object of the society is to promote small industries in rural and urban areas. 7. It is true that the name of the petitioner is included in the final voters list of voters from industrial co-operative societies constituency. There is only one voter in the industrial cooperative societies constituency. Likewise, there cannot be any 6 904 wp 3174.22 dispute that if the petitioner is held to be ineligible, there will be no representation of any director from industrial co-operative societies constituency. It would be profitable to refer to bye-law No. 5, which confirms right to any cooperative society to avail membership of the Industrial Society. However, perusal of bye- law No. 40-A will demonstrate that every co-operative societies is not eligible to contest the election for the post of director from industrial cooperative society constituency. In order to be eligible to contest election from industrial co-operative societies constituency, the co-operative society must run an industry, which is an essential eligibility criterion prescribed under the bye-laws of the Industrial Society. 8. Although I am in agreement with Mr. Salunke learned advocate that the Returning Officer erred in rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground of proposer and seconder were not from industrial co-operative societies constituency, it will not be possible to allow the petition unless the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria laid down under bye-law No. 40-A. 9. As regards the second contention that since the nomination form was rejected only on the ground that the proposer and seconder were not from the industrial cooperative societies constituency, the other objection raised by the respondent No. 5 could not have been looked into by the appellate authority, the said contention is difficult to accept in the facts of the present 7 904 wp 3174.22 case. In order to contest the election of industrial cooperative society constituency, the candidate must fulfill all the eligibility criteria. In the present case, the respondent No. 5 had raised two specific objections to the nomination form of the petitioner. The Returning Officer was obligated to decide both these objections. However, the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination form on one of the objections raised by the respondent No. 5, albeit incorrectly. The other objection upheld by the appellate authority was specifically raised before the Returning Officer. Since the other objection was already raised before the Returning Officer, it cannot be said that the petitioner was taken by surprise during the course of hearing of the appeal. 10. Reliance placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Murlidhar Rangrao Gaikwad Vs. State Co-operative Election Authority and others (supra) is misplaced. Perusal of the said judgment will indicate that the authority deciding appeal under Section 152-A of the M. C. S. Act should not adjudicate any serious factual dispute and must restrict itself to decide as to whether the Returning Officer has adopted the correct legal process and and acted reasonably in order to follow the principles of natural justice. The provision as also the judgment does not prohibit the appellate authority from upholding the conclusion drawn by the Returning Officer, although on the ground other than on which nomination form is rejected. 8 904 wp 3174.22 11. Even if the contention of Mr. Salunke, that ground other than the one on which the nomination form was rejected could not have been considered or dealt with by the appellate authority is accepted, this Court is of the considered opinion that while exercising writ jurisdiction indulgence should not be shown in favour of the petitioner since the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite eligibility criteria or qualification for contesting the election for the post of director from industrial co-operative societies constituency. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked only in enforcement of fundamental or other legal right. In view of failure to make out any legal right, to contest the election, the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, merely for the purpose of correction of error of law committed by any authority. It is a well settled legal propostiion that if setting aside an illegal order results in revival of another illegal order or act, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226/227. 12. Mr. Salunke also raised a contention that in an appeal under Section 152-A of the M. C. S. Act, the appellate authority cannot indulge in any fishing or roving enquiry. Since a specific objection with regard to qualification of eligibility of the petitioner to contest the election from industrial cooperative societies constituency is raised by respondent No.5 and the said objection is decided by the appellate authority, on the basis of 9 904 wp 3174.22 admitted fact that the society of the petitioner does not run an industry, it cannot be said that the appellate authority has indulged in any roving or fishing enquiry while deciding the appeal. 13. For the reasons stated above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.] bsb/Sept. 26