Partly allowed

Najir Wajir Birbal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Feb 2017WP/1471/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged an election programme for a cooperative society for failing to obtain mandatory prior approval under Rule 75(2)(b) and for setting an insufficient time limit for nomination withdrawal. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order and the programme, and directed a fresh election.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13/01/2017 and the election programme dated 07/01/2017 are quashed and set aside; a fresh programme must be published following mandatory provisions.

Najir Wajir Birbal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp1471.17.doc

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1471 OF 2017

¶5

1 Najir Wajir Birbal age 45 years, occ. Agriculture r/o Kahala(BK), Tq. Naigaon(Kh) Dist. Nanded

¶6

2 Smita Madhavrao Kahalekar age 40 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶7

3 Dhanraj s/o Ramesh Kahalekar age 28 years, occ. Agril r/.o as above.

¶8

4 Shiraj s/o Ramesh Kahalekar age 22 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶9

5 Shivkanta Anantrao Kahalekar age 40 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶10

6 Bhagyashree Rameshrao Kahalekar age 25 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶11

7 Rajnandini Rameshrao Kahalekar age 23 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶12

8 Madhukar s/o Tolba Bhosikar age 50 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶13

9 Balaji s/o Shankarrao Buddhe age 45 years, occ. Agril r/o as above

¶14

10 Pushpabai Balaji Buddhe age 35 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶15

11 Sangita Anandrao Kahalekar age 40 years, occ. Agril r/o as above

¶16

wp1471.17.doc

¶17

¶18

12 Subhadra Ganpatrao Kahalekar age 65 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶19

13 Subhash s/o Gangaram Kahalekar age 45 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶20

14 Vishwanath s/o Gangaram Kahalekar age 40 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶21

15 Razak Bashirsab Birbal age 45 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶22

16 Rajesh s/o Balaji Vhande age 24 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶23

17 Shantabai Mahdukarrao Bhosikar age 45 years, occ. Agril r/o as above

¶24

18 Sunanda Manohar Kahalekar age 45 years,occ. Agril r/o as above

¶25

19 Gangabai Vishwanath Kahalekar age 35 years, occ. Agril r/o as above

¶26

20 Nirmala Vishwanath Kahalekar age 35 years,occ. Agril r/o as above

¶27

21 Gajanan s/o Manohar Kahalekar age 25 years, occ. Agril r/o as above.

¶28

22 Lahu s/o Laxman Kahalekar age 48 years, occ. Agril r/o as above. .. PETITIONERS

¶29

VERSUS

¶30

1 The State of Maharashtra Through its Corporation & Textile Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 Through its Secretary

¶31

wp1471.17.doc

¶32

¶33

2	The State Cooperative Election Authority Central Administrative Building Pune
3	District Cooperative Election Officer & District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Nanded, dist. Nanded
4	The Taluka Cooperative Election Officer & Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Naigaon, TQ. Naigaon, dist. Nanded
5	The Returning Officer Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. Kahala (Bk), Tq. Naigaon(Kh) Dist. Nanded
6	Seva Sahakari Society Ltd Kahala(Bk), Tq. Naigaon(Kh) Dist. Nanded Through its Secretary/Administrator	..RESPONDENTS

¶34

Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil, advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.P. Basarkar, AGP for the State. Mr. S.K. Kadam, advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 5. Mr. U.M.Maske, advocate for respondent no. 6.

¶35

=====

¶36

CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J. DATE : 9^th FEBRUARY, 2017.

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶38

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶39

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶40

Reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 so also respondent no. 6 is taken on record.

¶41

wp1471.17.doc

¶42

¶43

The main grievance raised in this petition is that no prior approval of Taluka Co-operative Election Officer as required under Rule 75(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 2014, has been taken and, the time set for each of the stage of the election process under Rule 75 has also not been followed while preparing the election programme.

¶44

Reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 shows that no prior approval as required under Rule 75(2)(b) of the Rules has been obtained. Such prior approval is mandatory and, therefore, the election programme has stood vitiated. That apart, time for completion of each of the stages of election process set under rule 75 has also not been followed in the election programme and, therefore, on this count also, the election programme would have to be held as invalid in the eyes of law. As an instance, item no. 9 in the election programme, which sets time limit for withdrawal of the nomintion can be cited. In the election programme, for the stage of withdrawal of nomination papers, a period of only one week has been granted, whereas under Rule 75(2)(b) of the Rules, the minimum time which must be granted for withdrawal of nomination paper is of 15 days.

¶45

In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 13th January, 2017 as well as the election programme need to be quashed and set aside. Writ petition is accordingly partly allowed with costs. Impugned order dated 13th January, 2017 and, the election programme published on 7th January,2017, are hereby quashed and set aside. Fresh election

¶46

wp1471.17.doc

¶47

¶48

programme, by following the mandatory provisions of law, may be published within reasonable period of time. All contentions of parties including the one relating to inclusion of names in the voters list are kept open. Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶49

Authenticated copy of the order be furnished to respondent no. 4 through the learned counsel.

¶50

dyb

Najir Wajir Birbal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najir Wajir Birbal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundarrao Munjaji Shinde Vs Gangasagar Annasaheb Labade and Another

Karbhari Sahebrao Bhise Vs Keshav Subhash Bhise and Others

Narayan Ramrao Badar Vs Shweta Ashish Sethi

Shrimant Dada Dandge Vs the State Election Commission and Others

Ramanand Nanakramji Ladda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nagnath Bhagwan Nilkanth and Another Vs Dayanand Parmeshwar Godse