1 902-WP-4564-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4564 OF 2026 Late Tamma Tukaram Karade Vividh Karykari Vikas Society Karewadi (tikondi) Ltd. Through Vice Chairman ...Petitioner Vs. State Of Maharashtra Through Dept. Of Co. Operation & Textiles & Ors. ...Respondents ... Mr. Ishaan Kapse, Advocate for Petitioner.. Mr. Ruturaj Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr. Shubham Dhenge i/b Mr. Manoj Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ….. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER : . Heard both sides. 2. The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 07.09.2026 passed by the District Cooperative Election Authority, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for incorporation in the voters list on the ground that the Petitioner became a member after the cut-off date, i.e. 22.11.2023. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner adverted my attention to the Bank Statement of Respondent No.3-Federal 2 902-WP-4564-2026 Society disclosing payment of share capital of Rs.20,100/- on 23.10.2023, the communication dated 19.10.2023 and Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”). Reliance is placed on the letter dated 27.08.2026 and the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Hariom Shetkari Samuh Krushi Sahitya Va Dhanya Godam Sahakari Sanstha through its Chairmand Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar and Ors.1 4. Mr. Ruturaj Pawar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, would submit that there are disputed questions of fact and, in a summary inquiry, it is not expected of the Returning Officer to adjudicate intricate issues. My attention is adverted to Section 26 of the Act to buttress that the Petitioner did not invest the entire amount in one go and that further investment was made on 29.12.2023. It is further pointed out that the Petitioner or its representatives were absent at the time of hearing and that this Court cannot take into account the submissions made for the first time. 5. The cut-off date was declared on 22.11.2023 as per the 1 (2021) 3 AIR BoM R 512 3 902-WP-4564-2026 correspondence dated 30.06.2026. The Petitioner or its representative did not remain present for the hearing before Respondent No.2. It appears that, through the representation dated 23.10.2023, it was submitted that the share capital was provided by the Petitioner-Primary Society to Respondent No.3- Federal Society, relying upon the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 05.12.2023. It is concluded by Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner was made a member after the cut-off date and was declared ineligible for participation in the election process. 6. The statement of Respondent No.3-Bank shows that the share capital amounting to Rs.20,000/- was paid by the Petitioner on 23.10.2023. By the letter of Respondent No.3 dated 19.10.2023, Rs.100/- appears to be the entrance fee. The Bank statement further reveals that Rs.80/- was further paid on 29.12.2023. In this regard, it is relevant to see Section 27, which stipulates investment of any part of its funds in the shares of any federal society. It does not contemplate payment of the entire share capital. 4 902-WP-4564-2026 7. Even if it is held that Rs.80/- was the deficit amount which was paid at a later point of time, that would not debar the Petitioner and, by application of the statutory provision, it becomes a member after completion of three years from the investment of the substantive part. 8. I find that a case is made out by the Petitioner that it is eligible to be a member, as the substantive investment was made prior to the cut-off date. 9. The emphasis is made by Mr. Ruturaj Pawar on Section 26 to show that the Petitioner was not eligible for non-payment of the entire contribution. I have already observed that the substantive part of the investment has already been made. The claim of the Petitioner cannot be faulted. Prima facie, by implication of Section 27(3), the Petitioner has to be held eligible for inclusion in the voters list. 10. Even if it is accepted that the later payment of Rs.80/- was made after the cut-off date, Section 27(3) does not contemplate payment of the entire amount for the investment by the Primary Society. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not accept the 5 902-WP-4564-2026 submission that disputed questions of fact are involved in the matter. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent is rightly contending that nobody remained present on behalf of the Petitioner at the time of hearing. Care should have been taken by the Petitioner and its representative to point out these facts before Respondent No.2, but that cannot operate to the detriment of the substantive right of the Petitioner to participate in the election process. For this lapse, I propose to impose costs of Rs.25,000/-. 12. Though the powers of Respondent No.3 are summary in nature, the very purport is to examine the eligibility of the member. It would have been possible for Respondent No.2 to examine the investment made on 23.10.2023 on the touchstone of Section 27 of the Act. It is informed that the further program of election has not been published. The direction to incorporate the Petitioner in the voters list is plausible without stalling the further process. This Court is aware of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Dattatray Genaba Lole & Ors. Vs. 6 902-WP-4564-2026 Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors.2 It is a fit case to cause interference in the impugned order. 13. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to include the Petitioner in the voters list. 14. The Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.15,000/- within a period of one week to the High Court Bar Association Circuit Bench at Kolhapur. The details of the account are mentioned below: Bank Name : Shree Gajanan Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha, Marya, Kolhapur. Branch : Sahupuri, Kolhapur. A/c. No. : 00032010001745. 15. Additionally, costs of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to Respondent No.3-District Central Co-operative Bank. 16. I have gone through the findings recorded in Para No.12 and inter alia reliance on the judgment of in the matter of Dhudhganga Vikas Seva Sanstha Maryadit Vs. District Collector, Kolhapur3. I also propose to adopt the same course. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] Suresh 2 (2021) 2 HCC (Bom) 612. 3 (2006) 5 SCC 250.