(1) 943-wp-6028-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6028 OF 2026 ANKUSH RANGNATH KALE VERSUS THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR SUGAR AHILYANAGAR AND OTHERS ... Mr. Ravindra V Gore and Mr. Yogesh S Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K. S. Patil, AGP for Respondents-State. Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 12.06.2026 passed by respondent no.1 Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Ahilyanagar Region in Appeal No.4/2026, thereby upholding order dated 03.06.2026 passed by respondent no.2 Returning Officer rejecting petitioner’s nomination at the election of respondent no.3 Karkhana. 2. The petitioner submitted his nomination. The Returning Officer on scrutiny of nomination and on the basis of information supplied by Karkhana observed that petitioner has not complied with provision of bye-laws, particularly Clause No.26(1)(E)(4) and (5). As such, breached Rule 21(3) of MCS Rules, 2014. 3. Mr. Gore, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that, there is nothing to demonstrate that petitioner has breached 2026:BHC-AUG:24032 (2) 943-wp-6028-2026.odt bye-laws of Society. According to him, in case of breach, Karkhana ought to have given notice to petitioner and Arbitrator ought to have been appointed to recover losses, if any, caused to Karkhana due to default of petitioner. However, petitioner cannot be disqualified to contest election. 4. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted, as eligibility of petitioner or any member to contest election is governed by provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Rules framed thereunder, and the bye-laws of concerned Co-operative Society. In the present case, bye-laws prescribe requirement for supply of sugarcane by members and non-compliance thereof or breach of agreement in that regard constitutes disqualification for being validly nominated in election. In present case, petitioner could not demonstrate before this Court that he complied terms of agreement or requirement of supplying sugarcane. Hence, there is no merit in contentions of petitioner. 5. In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. 6. Needless to state here that, all contentions are kept open to be raised in appropriate proceeding post election (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/June-2026