Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8205 (BOM)

WATHAR BUDRUK VIVIDH KARYAKARI SEVA SAHAKARI SOCIETY LTD. THR. CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. CO-OPERATIVE MINISTRY OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

WP/4589/2026 · 2026-09-11

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 506-WP-4589-2026 (C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4589 OF 2026 Wathar Budruk Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. Through Chairman …...Petitioner VERSUS State Of Maharashtra Through Co-operative Ministry Of Maharashtra & Ors. .....Respondents ... Mr. Kiran Phakade with Mr. Arjun Mohite, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Ruturaj Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Santosh Jadhav, “B” Panel advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3-State. Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.4-State. ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. ORDER : . Heard both sides. 2. The order dated 07.09.2026 is under challenge, rejecting the nomination of the Petitioner on the ground that it was presented beyond the cut-off date. 3. The memo of the Writ Petition does not spell out any resolution or authorization to file and prosecute the Petition. Neither is any resolution produced on record to demonstrate that any authorization is given. 2 506-WP-4589-2026 (C) 4. The time for presenting the resolution was from 07.07.2026 to 05.08.2026. The first meeting of the Managing Board was conducted on 03.08.2026, appointing the Petitioner, but for want of sufficient quorum, the resolution could not be passed. Thereafter, on 08.08.2026, the meeting was convened and the appointment of the Petitioner was reiterated. The resolution was presented on 13.08.2026, which was beyond the stipulated time. 5. The Returning Officer has rightly taken a view, and there is no provision to condone delay or to permit the party to comply with the requirement after the cut-off date. 6. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] Suresh