Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Pannalal Sankhala, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Returning Officer (respondent no.1) of Mahavir Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Chopda (respondent no.2 society), which rejected his objections and accepted the nomination of respondent no.3, Shantilal Tarachand Bothra, for the election to the society's board for the term 2022-2027. The election programme was declared, with the primary voters list published on 04.01.2023, nomination acceptance from 20.02.2023 to 24.02.2023, scrutiny on 27.02.2023, and the final list of nominated candidates published on 28.02.2023. The petitioner, a member of the society, objected to respondent no.3's nomination on the ground that respondent no.3 had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,000 from the society and had defaulted in repayment, making him a defaulter and thus disqualified under Section 26(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Bye-law 18(1)(c) of the society. The Returning Officer rejected the objection without proper consideration and accepted the nomination. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court examined the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act, which disqualifies a person from being a member of the committee if he is a defaulter in repayment of a loan, and Bye-law 18(1)(c), which similarly disqualifies a defaulter from contesting elections. The court noted that the respondent no.3 had admitted to taking the loan and defaulting, and the society's records confirmed the default. The court held that the Returning Officer erred in accepting the nomination without considering the disqualification. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Returning Officer to reject the nomination of respondent no.3. The court also clarified that this order does not affect the election process for other candidates.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Societies - Election - Disqualification of Candidate - Default in Loan Repayment - Section 26(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Bye-law 18(1)(c) - The petitioner objected to the nomination of respondent no.3 on the ground that he was a defaulter in repayment of a loan taken from the society. The Returning Officer rejected the objection and accepted the nomination. The High Court held that the Returning Officer erred in accepting the nomination as the respondent no.3 was a defaulter and thus disqualified from contesting the election. The court set aside the order and directed the Returning Officer to reject the nomination of respondent no.3. (Paras 1-10) B) Cooperative Societies - Election - Scrutiny of Nomination - Duty of Returning Officer - Section 26(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The Returning Officer must examine whether a candidate is disqualified under the Act and bye-laws. In this case, the respondent no.3 had taken a loan from the society and defaulted in repayment, making him ineligible to contest. The court held that the Returning Officer's failure to consider the default was a material irregularity. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Returning Officer was justified in accepting the nomination of respondent no.3 despite the petitioner's objection that respondent no.3 was a defaulter in repayment of a loan to the society, thereby disentitling him from contesting the election under Section 26(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Bye-law 18(1)(c) of the society.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Returning Officer, and directed the Returning Officer to reject the nomination of respondent no.3. The court clarified that this order does not affect the election process for other candidates.
Law Points
- Election law
- Cooperative societies
- Nomination scrutiny
- Default in loan repayment
- Disqualification of candidate
- Section 26(2) Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- 1960
- Bye-law 18(1)(c)
- Returning Officer's duty
- Writ jurisdiction in election matters
