1 902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4532 OF 2026 Manojkumar Sadashivrao Pol .. Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through Co-operative Ministry Of Maharashtra State & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4534 OF 2026 Maan Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Maryadit, Dahiwadi Through Its Chairman …...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra through The Secretary & Ors. …...Respondents ... Mr. Kirankumar Phakade with Ms. Shweta Phakade i/b Mr. Arjun Mohite, Advocate for the Petitioner WP. No.4532 of 2026. Mr. Pradeep Dalvi with Mr. Drupad Patil, Mr. Rahul Khot and Mr. Hange, i/b Mr. Harsh Khot, Advocate for the Respondent No.7 in WP. No.4532 of 2026 and Respondent No.6 in WP. No.4534 of 2026. Mr. Louis Shah with Mr. Swaroop M. Karade, Advocate for the Respondent No.6 in WP. No.4532 of 2026 and Petitioner in WP. No.4534 of 2026. Mr. Ruturaj P. Pawar, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in both WP. Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 4-State. Mr. J. P. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 4 WP. No.4534 of 2026. ... 2 902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C) CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER: WRIT PETITION NO. 4534 OF 2026 . Heard. 2. The Respondents have raised a preliminary objection in Writ Petition No.4534 of 2026. It is submitted that, in the absence of any averment in the petition memo regarding the resolution and authorization to prosecute the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is not tenable in the High Court. 3. The submission is countered by the Petitioner-Co-operative Society, contending that it is required to be filed in peculiar circumstances. The impugned order was passed on 07.09.2026, and it was made available on 08.09.2026. There was no breathing period to compile all the documents and produce them before the Court. The resolution has already been passed, which can be produced. It is stated to be a curable defect. 4. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. I find that it is trite law that there has to be averment, which is 3 902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C) the foundation, to disclose the locus of the Petitioner. In the absence of such averment, there is reason to infer that the petition is not maintainable. I find substance in the objection. The objection is sustained. The Writ Petition is dismissed for want of locus standi. The dismissal shall not cause any prejudice to another petition presented by the representative of the said cooperative society. WRIT PETITION NO.4532 OF 2026 5. The order dated 07.09.2026 passed by the Returning Officer is under challenge, in which the objection raised by the Respondent No.7 against the Petitioner representative has been sustained. 6. Undisputedly, the Petitioner society’s term was over on 19.12.2022; the earlier elected body continued. Thereafter, the administrator was appointed by the competent authority under Section 77 A(b) on 12.08.2026. It was subjected to challenge before the Divisional Joint Registrar, and stay to the execution was solicited before the authority. It was rejected on 19.09.2026. 7. Being aggrieved, Writ Petition No. 4111 of 2026 was 4 902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C) preferred. This Court passed ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c), thereby staying the execution of the appointment of arbitrator vide order dated 24.08.2026. The Writ Petition is still pending. 8. The Petitioner claims that the resolution was passed in meeting of managing committee on 17.07.2026 appointing him to represent the Respondent No.6-Society. It was confirmed on 28.08.2026 in a General Body Meeting. The resolution was presented before the Returning Officer. As there was stay granted by the High Court to the appointment of Administrator, the outgoing managing committee can be said to be in operation. The Returning Officer is contended to have exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the objection of the Respondent No.7. 9. Mr. Pradeep Dalvi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.7, vehemently submits that it is impermissible to entertain the Petition as the Petition preferred by the Respondent No.6-Cooperative is dismissed. The term of the Managing Committee was ended long back and the Petitioner has no independent right or locus to challenge the impugned order. It is further submitted that the proviso to sub-Section 3 of 5 902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C) Section 73 AAA was deleted on 15.04.2026. It would be a matter of inquiry before the competent authority as to whether any fault is attributed to the society or not. It is further submitted that there is no error of jurisdiction committed by the Returning Officer and he has rightly exercised the power under Rule 11 (3) of the Act. It is further contended that the papers of Writ Petition No. 4111 of 2026 be called for to ascertain the stand taken by the society. It is contended that if the society is ineligible to be a member of the federal society, then its representation would be bad in law. 10. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.6, supports the Petitioner. My attention is invited to Section 73 CB(12). It is further submitted that the name of the Respondent No. 6-Society is already appearing in the provisional list. It is further contended that the Resolutions passed on 17.07.2026 as well as 28.08.2026 have not been challenged before the competent forum. 11. The scope of the inquiry under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2014 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “MCS Act”) has already been dealt with by this Court in the matter of Vithlai 6 902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C) Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit Karanjphen and Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors., decided on 03.09.2026. The various judgments in this regard were considered, including that of Dhondiba Parshuram Lakade Vs. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1and Rajan Dinkarrao Pharate and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.2. I have taken view that legality of resolution involving intricate issue can not be gone into by Returning Officer. 12. In the present matter, the term of the Respondent No. 6- Society was over on 19.12.2022; the outgoing committee is holding office. The resolution dated 17.07.2026 was passed in a Meeting of the Managing Committee, which is confirmed in the meeting of the General Body on 28.08.2026. The Administrator was appointed by order of the Assistant Registrar on 12.08.2026. The effect of the said order is stayed by this Court vide order dated 24.08.2026 in Writ Petition No. 4111 of 2026. 1 (2001) 8 SCC 509 2 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 543. 7 902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C) 13. The predominant reason for raising the objection is that the term of the outgoing committee was over on 19.12.2022. However, in view of the proviso to Section 73 AAA(3), it can be said that the outgoing committee was holding over and had the right to transact the business. The Petitioner is Class-B society. The resolution appointing the Petitioner is valid, prima facie. 14. The Returning Officer has a limited scope of inquiry under Rule 11. It is a summary inquiry. Whether the outgoing committee was having any power or whether the business transacted by it is legal or not would be within the realm of inquiry before the competent authority. When the documents regarding the passing of the resolution in favour of the Petitioner and the stay granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4111 of 2026 are on record, that would corroborate the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s claim should have been accepted. I find that the Respondent-Returning Officer committed patent illegality. The valuable right of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 6- Society is at stake, which cannot be taken away in this fashion. 8 902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C) 15. I find that today is the date of finalization of the voters list. The further election program is yet to be declared. If the impugned order is set aside, it is possible to include the Petitioner. The impugned order is executable and would not disturb the further process of election. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Dattatraya Genabe Lole and Ors. Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Pune, decided on 26.11.2021, I find that a case is made out and it is appropriate for this Court to intervene in the matter. 16. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). 17. After pronouncement of the order, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 7 prays for suspending the order for two weeks so as to enable his client to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court. 18. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 6 have opposed the request. 9 902-&-903-WP-4532-2026 (C) 19. Considering the timeline of the ensuing election process, I am not inclined to accept the request. Hence, the request is rejected. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] Suresh