Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, members of Respondent No.5 Co-operative Housing Society, challenged the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Returning Officer for the society's election. The society had an administrator appointed under Section 78A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. On 1st December 2023, Respondent No.4 was appointed as Returning Officer to conduct the election for the term 2023-2028. The petitioners contended that the appointment was illegal as Respondent No.4 was not from the panel of officers prepared by the State Co-operative Election Authority under Section 144Y of the Act. The court examined Section 144Y and Rule 74(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, which mandate that the Returning Officer shall be appointed from the panel prepared by the Authority. The court found that Respondent No.4 was not from such panel, and therefore, his appointment was invalid. The court quashed the appointment and directed the respondents to appoint a Returning Officer from the panel prepared by the Authority. The petition was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Law - Election - Appointment of Returning Officer - Rule 74(2)(b) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 - The appointment of Respondent No.4 as Returning Officer was quashed as he was not from the panel prepared by the State Co-operative Election Authority under Section 144Y of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The court held that the appointment must be from the panel of officers prepared by the Authority, and the impugned appointment was contrary to the statutory scheme. (Paras 1-10)
B) Co-operative Law - Election - Returning Officer - Section 144Y of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - The court interpreted Section 144Y and Rule 74(2)(b) to mean that the Returning Officer must be appointed from the panel prepared by the State Co-operative Election Authority. The appointment of Respondent No.4, who was not from such panel, was set aside. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Returning Officer for the election of Respondent No.5 Society is legal and valid under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition in part, quashing the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Returning Officer and directing the respondents to appoint a Returning Officer from the panel prepared by the State Co-operative Election Authority under Section 144Y of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Law Points
- Appointment of Returning Officer must be from panel prepared by State Co-operative Election Authority
- Rule 74(2)(b) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules
- 2014
- Section 144Y of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (01) 222
Writ Petition No.429 of 2024
A. S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain
Mr. Ruturaj Pawar for the Petitioners, Ms. Pooja Deelip Patil i/by Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar for Respondent No.1 (SCEA), Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for Respondent No.2 (State), Mr. Pramod Patil a/w Mr. Ajit Hon, Mr. Shyamsunder Solanke & Ms. Sakshi Thombare i/by PNP & Associates for Respondent Nos.3 & 5
Shrikant Balasao Patil and Rajaram Krishna Patil
State Co-operative Election Authority, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Administrator, Chavre Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., The Returning Officer & Auditor Co-operative Societies, Chavre Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the appointment of Returning Officer for a co-operative housing society election.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of appointment of Respondent No.4 as Returning Officer and other reliefs.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Returning Officer was illegal as he was not from the panel prepared by the State Co-operative Election Authority.
Issues
Whether the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Returning Officer is valid under Section 144Y of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rule 74(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Returning Officer must be appointed from the panel prepared by the State Co-operative Election Authority under Section 144Y, and Respondent No.4 was not from such panel.
Respondents argued that the appointment was valid and in accordance with the rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The appointment of a Returning Officer for a co-operative society election must be from the panel of officers prepared by the State Co-operative Election Authority under Section 144Y of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as mandated by Rule 74(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. Any appointment not from such panel is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have primarily challenged the appointment of Respondent No.4 – Shri. Subhash Deshmukh as Returning Officer for conducting election of Respondent No.5 – Society.
The appointment of Respondent No.4 as Returning Officer is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint a Returning Officer from the panel prepared by the State Co-operative Election Authority under Section 144Y of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.429 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court challenging the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Returning Officer. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 19th January 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: Section 78A, Section 144Y
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014: Rule 74(2)(b), Rule 76
