Sonali Mane 910-WP-13341-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13341 OF 2026 Kalyan Krishnaji Kalbhor … Petitioner Versus The Maharashtra State Co Op Election Authority And Ors … Respondents Mr. Prasad Dani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Chetan Nagare, Mr. Prasad Avhad for Petitioner. Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam a/w Ms. Akansha Gond for Respondent No.4. Mr. Dilip Bodke a/w Ms. Shraddha Pawar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Y. S. Khochare ‘B’ PNL a/w Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP for Respondent-State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2026. P.C. : 1) By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged by Order dated 28 September 2026 passed by the District Cooperative Election Officer and the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Pune (Rural) rejecting the objection raised by the Petitioner to the provisional list of voters prepared for conducting elections to the committee of Respondent No.4-Society. ___Page No. 1 of 7 ___ 13 October, 2026 MANE SONALI DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2026.10.17 12:11:47 +0530 Sonali Mane 910-WP-13341-2026.docx 2) I have heard Mr. Dani, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioner, Mr. Sakhare, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.4-Society, Mr. Bodke, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Prabhune, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent-State. 3) Perusal of the objection raised by the Petitioner on 16 September 2026 would indicate that its primary grievance was that in the audit report for the year 2023-2024, 210 members of the society were indicated whereas in the list of provisional voters, 240 members are indicated. Though the difference between the total number of members in audit report and in the provisional list was only 30, Petitioner gave names of 34 persons and sought their deletion from the final list of voters. It appears that the society gave details of the dates of admission of each of the 34 persons and specifically raised a defence that names of those 34 persons are included in the "I" and "J" registers. In the impugned order dated 28 September 2026, the District Co- operative Election Officer has recorded a satisfaction that the 34 persons are admitted to the membership of Respondent No.4-Society. 4) Mr. Dani submits that if findings recorded in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the impugned order dated 28 September 2026 are perused, the District Co-operative Election Officer has referred to 7 legal heirs of Bhausaheb Namdev Dimble and four additional members who are allegedly admitted in the meeting held on 7 July 2021. He further submits that in the meeting of 17 March 2022, names of 7 legal heirs of Vinod Vasant Gaikwad and additional 7 members as and claimed to have been admitted to societies members. He submits that even if it is ___Page No. 2 of 7 ___ 13 October, 2026 Sonali Mane 910-WP-13341-2026.docx assumed that the persons referred to in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the impugned order are admitted to society's members they add up to only 24. He submits that the District Cooperative Election Officer has not dealt with the objection with regard to the remaining 10 persons whose names are erroneously included in the original list of voters. However, as observed above, the Society gave details of the dates of admission of each of the 34 persons in its reply filed before the District Co-operative Election Officer. A satisfaction is recorded by the District Co-operative Election Officer, after perusal of record, that all the 34 persons are admitted to the membership of the society. 5) Mr. Dani has further contended that upon death of Bhausaheb Namdev Dimble and Vinod Vasant Gaikwad, their legal heirs could have been admitted only as joint members and only one person amongst them should be entitled to vote in the elections. However, this point was apparently not raised in the objection dated 16 September 2026 filed by the Petitioner. Even otherwise, while deciding a challenge to the voters list, the District Co-operative Election Officer cannot go into the issue of validity of admission of person as member of the society. This Court has held in Subhash Pandurang Bandiwadekar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 that the District Co-operative Election Officer does not have jurisdiction to go into the issue of validity of admission of a person as a member. 6) There is yet another reason why this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Petition. Petitioner has failed to implead to 34 persons whose names are sought to be deleted from the list of voters. 1 Writ Petition No. 648 of 2025 decided on 21 January 2025 ___Page No. 3 of 7 ___ 13 October, 2026 Sonali Mane 910-WP-13341-2026.docx In Shri. Adinath Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra2 a coordinate Bench of this Court has held in paragraph Nos. 24 to 30 as under: 24. The petitioners, when sought liberty to implead respondent Nos. 5 to 14, it was expected on the part of the petitioners to seek consequential amendment abandoning their challenges to the inclusion of 4,129 persons in the final voters list and restricting it only to respondent Nos. 5 to 14. Failure to effect such consequential amendment leads me to draw inference against the petitioners that they desire to challenge inclusion of all the newly added persons in the voters list. This inference stands reinforced with the denial on the part of Mr. Govilkar to make any positive statement as indicated hereinabove. 25. On the above canvas, in my considered view, all persons, who are beneficiaries of the impugned order; and are likely to be affected must be party-respondents to the petition. In absence of those persons, it will not be fair on the part of this Court to set aside their inclusion in the final voters list. Such order, if passed, would clearly be in breach of principles of natural justice as held by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan vs. Ramchand, AIR 1965 SC 1767. In this behalf, it will also be relevant to refer to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 (para-75); wherein the Apex Court ruled as under: "The writ petitions have also to fall on the ground of absence of necessary parties in the party array. Though the appellant- petitioners contend that they are only challenging the list to a limited extent, acceptance of their contention will result in a total rearrangement of the select list. The candidates will be displaced from their present ranks, besides some of them may also be out of the select list of 70. It was, therefore, imperative that all the candidates in the select list should have been impleaded as parties to the writ petitions as otherwise they will be affected without being heard. Publication in the newspaper does not cure this defect. There are only a specified definite number of candidates who had to be impleaded, namely, 70. It is not as if there are a large unspecified number of people to be affected. In such cases, resort cannot be made to Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules. That rule can be applied only when very large number of candidates are involved and it may not be able to pinpoint those candidates with details. In our view, the writ petitions have to fail for non-joinder of necessary parties also." 26. The aforesaid observations clearly lay down that if large unspecified can be dispensed with. This rule can be applied only when large number 2 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 309 ___Page No. 4 of 7 ___ 13 October, 2026 Sonali Mane 910-WP-13341-2026.docx of persons are involved and if it is not possible to pin point their details. But where the specified individuals or persons with their details are known to the petitioners, then, their presence before the Court cannot be dispensed with. Following the aforesaid settled legal position of law laid down by the Apex Court, I have no option but to hold that his petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. 27. Considered from another angle, all applications before respondent No. for inclusion of their names in the final voters list were moved by almost more than 5,000 individuals, contents of which were more or less identical. The objections filed by the petitioner- Society were also similar and identical. The reasons given for the inclusion of 4,139 individuals in final voters list are also identical. The petitioners are aggrieved by the inclusion of these 4,139 persons in the voters list. The petitioners have suffered a common order based on identical reasons at the hands of respondent No. 2. In the circumstances, petitioners cannot be heard of saying that they will make only 5-10 persons as party-respondents in the petition and get the entire order of inclusion of all persons set aside and thereby deprive almost 4,129 persons of the benefit of the impugned order without affording them minimum opportunity of hearing. This course is not left open to the petitioners. 28. Assuming that the petitioners are right in their contention that they can restrict their challenge to the inclusion of specified 10 persons as voters in the final voters list, since it is for the petitioners to decide whose inclusion they should challenge, the petitioners were, thus, expected to take bold stand before this Court in unequivocal terms stating that they are restricting their challenges in the petition to the extent of inclusion of only 10 persons who are before this Court. No such statement came from the petitioners in spite of specific query in this behalf. Had the challenge at the instance of the petitioners restricted to the inclusion of 10 persons, then the things would have been different. But no such course was adopted by the petitioners. On the present text of the petition, if the petition is allowed and inclusion of respondent Nos. 5 to 14 is set aside, then such order will give rise to two sets of order inconsistent with each other, one in favour of 4,129 persons and another against 10 persons i.e. respondent Nos. 5 to 14, though factual matrix involved in the matter is almost similar, common and identical. It is settled law that two inconsistent orders in the same proceeding cannot be allowed to hold the field, especially, when the petitioners were objecting to each application seeking inclusion in the final voters list. In this view of the matter, it would be well within the discretion of this Court not to exercise writ jurisdiction so as to avoid creation of inconsistent situation. 29. One more factor needs to be noticed in respect of the present petition. The petitioners had raised objections for inclusion of almost 4,139 individuals in the final voters list. Assuming that the petitioners decide not to impugn in this petition inclusion of 4,129 individuals in ___Page No. 5 of 7 ___ 13 October, 2026 Sonali Mane 910-WP-13341-2026.docx the final voters list, then, one has to draw an inference that the petitioners are not interested in challenging their inclusion in the voters list. To that extent the impugned order will become final and conclusive. If that be so, the Petitioners are bound to be hit by res judicata so long as theri inclusion is not successfully challenged in the appropriate proceedings. On this cont also the petition is liable to fail. 30. In the totality of the circumstances and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, this Petition is liable to be dismissed, basically, for non- joinder of necessary parties, without examining the challenges set up in the petition on merits. 7) Similarly, in Narsing Ganpatrao Nikam Vs. State of Maharashtra3 a coordinate Bench of this Court has held in paragraph No. 16 of the judgment as under: 16. The additional reason why I decline to entertain the petition is that the persons, whom the Petitioner claims to be non-members and who, according to the Petitioner have been included in the voters' list, are not before this Court. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that these persons were not parties before the election officer, and therefore, they are not necessary parties in this petition. I am afraid this contention cannot be accepted. Once there is an order and there is an inclusion of these voters in the voters' list, if any order has to be passed holding that they are ineligible to be the voters on the ground that they are non-active members, in my considered view, such a prejudicial order cannot be passed behind their back. For this purpose, useful reliance can be placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Shree Adinath Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra In that view of the matter, no case for interference is found. The petition is without merit, and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. 8) In the absence of impleadment of the persons whose names are sought to be deleted, this Court would not be in a position to entertain the present Petition. Even otherwise, if Petitioner is aggrieved by the process of election, he always has the remedy of filing the Election Petition under provisions of Rule 78 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 read with 3 2020 SCC Online Bom 3100 ___Page No. 6 of 7 ___ 13 October, 2026 Sonali Mane 910-WP-13341-2026.docx Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as held by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dattatray Genaba Lole and Ors. Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors.4 . 9) In view of the above discussions, I am not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. Reserving the liberty for the Petitioner to file an Election Petition, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] 4 (2021) 2 HCC (Bom) 612 ___Page No. 7 of 7 ___ 13 October, 2026