Dismissed

Sanjay Panditrao Harshe v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2010WP/968/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the finalized voters' list for a cooperative bank election, arguing that bye-law amendments requiring new constituencies mandated de novo preparation. The Court held the list need not be revised as membership rights remained unaffected and dismissed the petition, allowing elections to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; respondents/authorities at liberty to proceed with further stages of election.

Sanjay Panditrao Harshe Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 968 OF 2010

¶4

Sanjay Panditrao Harshe, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. At Post : Ambad, Taluka : Ambad, District : Jalna. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra (Through its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32).

¶7

The District Collector, Jalna, District : Jalna.

¶8

The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalna.

¶9

The Jalna District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jalna, District : Jalna.

¶10

Gondi Vividh Karyakari Seva Society, Taluka : Ambad, Dist. Jalna, Through : its Chairman, Manoj s/o. Jagannath Markad, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Gondi, Taluka : Ambad, District : Jalna. .. Respondents.

¶11

(2)

¶12

Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

¶14

Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for respondent no.4.

¶15

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2010

¶17

COURT'S ORDER (Per R.M. Borde, J.) :

¶18

1. The petitioner is raising challenge to the voters' list, as finalized by the Returning Officer, for holding elections to the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 is a Specified Society within the meaning of Section 73G of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. All the members of the Society, including the petitioner, are entitled to participate in the process of election of the Specified Society.

¶19

2. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the preliminary voters' list was published for the purpose of holding elections of respondent no.4 on 25-5-2009 and the same was finalized on 8-1-2010. It is the contention of the petitioner, that

¶20

(3)

¶21

by virtue of amendment to bye-laws adopted on 29-9-2009, there were two more constituencies increased and, as such, the number of members required to be elected to the Managing Committee has increased to 18. The two new constituencies are, Urban Cooperative Bank, and the second one is Agricultural Produce Marketing and Processing Societies. It is the contention of the petitioner, that due to increase in two more constituencies in view of amendment to the bye-laws, it was necessary for the respondent, to initiate the process of finalization of voters' list de novo.

¶22

3. The last elections to the Board of Directors of respondent no.4 / Bank were held on 26-3-2002. Thereafter, action of supersession of the elected Board of Directors was taken and the Administrator came to be appointed who had taken charge of the affairs of the Society on 9-2-2004. Since thereafter, elections to the Board of Directors were not held and the programme of election is published only in the year 2010.

¶23

4. We have perused the affidavit in reply tendered by the respondent nos.2 and 3. It is specifically stated in the affidavit in reply, that the change in number of directors does not affect, in so far as electoral rights and electoral collegium of the respondent no.4 / Society, is concerned. The rights of the voters

¶24

(4)

¶25

to cast votes at the election is in no way affected. The petitioner has not been able to point out, as to how he is prejudiced by amendment in the bye-laws.

¶26

5. Initially, the respondent no.3 had issued a letter calling upon respondent no.4, to submit voters' list prescribing cut off date as 30-6-2005. Accordingly, respondent no.4 submitted a list of voters comprising of 914 members, on 2-2-2009. The list submitted by the respondent no.4 was forwarded to respondent no.2 who published the same, as a preliminary list of voters, on 25-5-2009. The claims and objections to the preliminary voters' list were called up to 24-6-2009.

¶27

The bye-laws of the respondent no.4 / Society are amended and the amendment to the bye-laws is approved on 29-9-2009. In view of the amendment, constituency of Marketing Processing Weavers Society and the constituency of non-agricultural Societies are bifurcated into four constituencies. Thus, in view of increase of two constituencies, number of members of the Board of Directors of respondent no.4 / Bank is increased to 18. The respondent no.3 thereafter issued a letter on 6-11-2009, directing respondent n.4 to prepare and submit a fresh voters' list as per the new bye-laws. The new list submitted by the

¶28

(5)

¶29

respondent no.4 / Society, as per the amended bye-laws, also consists of 914 members and the same was submitted to respondent no.3 on 16-11-2009. After receipt of fresh voters' list, the respondent no.2 decided objections to the voters' list and finalized the same. Thus, it is clear that the consequence of amendment to the bye-laws is that the two constituencies are split up and those are bifurcated into four constituencies. However, so far as membership of the Society is concerned, the same is, in no way, affected. As there is no change in respect of electoral rights or electoral collegium of the Society is concerned, it cannot be said that the petitioner is, in any way, prejudiced on account of adoption of the amended bye-laws and finalization of the voters' list in consonance with the amended bye-laws.

¶30

6. It is also to be noted that the process of finalization of voters' list is also integral part of the election process. In this respect, a useful reference can be made to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Mohanrao Anandrao Munde and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2006(6) Mh.L.J. 813) , wherein this Court, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, has observed thus :

¶31

" Reliance is placed on a judgment reported in 2002(1) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 659 = AIR

¶32

(6)

¶33

2001 SC 3982, in the matter of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha, and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others . The Apex Court, was, in the aforesaid judgment dealing with an aspect relating to preparation of electoral roll of a specific society. It is observed, in the reported judgment :

¶34

" Chapter XIA of the Act was enacted and the rules were framed specially to deal with the election of the specified societies under section 73G of the Act, section 144X provides that various stages of election shall also include preparation of the list of voters. Once the statute provides that preparation of the voters' list shall be part of the election process, there is no reason to hold that the preparation of the electoral roll is not an intermediate stage in the process of the election of a specified society. A perusal of the Rules discloses that the preparation of list of voters, filing of objection against the provisional list of voters, consideration of the objection by the Collector and finalizing the list of voters, all occur in the Rules which cover the entire process of the election. The Rules framed for election of specified societies are complete code in itself providing for the entire process of election beginning from the stage of preparation of the provisional voters' list, decision on the

¶35

(7)

¶36

objection by the Collector, finalisation of electoral rolls, holding of election and declaration of result of the election. From the scheme of the Act and Rules, it is clear that the preparation of voters' list is a part of the election process for constituting managing committee of a specified society. The writ petition challenging the order declaring the election schedule on ground of illegality in preparation of voters' list would therefore be not maintainable. "

¶37

The Honourable Apex Court has further observed :

¶38

" Since preparation of the electoral roll is an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified Society and the election process having been set in motion, it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality of breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll.

¶39

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court, it is clear that once the election process, having been set in motion, it was not proper for the authorities to stay the ongoing process of election. "

¶40

¶41

In this view of the matter, no interference is warranted

¶42

(8)

¶43

in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit.

¶44

8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶45

It is needless to state, that the respondents / authorities would be at liberty to proceed with the further stages of election. It is informed, that the elections of the respondent no.4 were due in 2007. Considering the fact that the elections were due in 2007, the respondents would take further steps for concluding the process of election expeditiously.

¶46

R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI )

¶47

JUDGE JUDGE

¶48

bgp/wp968

Sanjay Panditrao Harshe v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Panditrao Harshe v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulshan Bahu Uddeshiya Seva Bhavi Sanstha Nilanga Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sampatrao Malojirao Waghmare Vs State of Mah and Anr.

Babita Vyankat Mane and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gajmal Rupchand Thakare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad Suryabhan Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shamkant Kisanrao Rane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.