Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a contesting member in the election to Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (a sugar factory), filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Returning Officer dated 12-06-2023, which overruled his objection to the nomination of respondent No.5. The petitioner argued that respondent No.5 supplied sugarcane from outside the factory's area of operation, violating Rule 28(2) read with Rule 9 of the bye-laws, which require that sugarcane be grown within the area of operation and on a minimum of 20 Guntha of land. The Returning Officer, after considering the objection and respondent No.5's reply, recorded that there was insufficient proof and overruled the objection. The High Court noted that the Returning Officer failed to properly examine the eligibility criteria and that the acceptance of nomination without verifying compliance with bye-laws was erroneous. The court set aside the Returning Officer's order and directed him to decide the objection afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties, within two days. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Election - Nomination - Eligibility - Bye-laws - Rule 28(2) read with Rule 9 of the Bye-laws of Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana - The petitioner objected to the nomination of respondent No.5 on the ground that he supplied sugarcane from outside the factory's area of operation, violating the requirement that sugarcane be grown within the area of operation. The Returning Officer overruled the objection without proper inquiry. Held that the Returning Officer must examine the eligibility criteria strictly and cannot accept nomination without verifying compliance with bye-laws (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Returning Officer erred in accepting the nomination of respondent No.5 despite the objection that he supplied sugarcane from outside the factory's area of operation, in contravention of Rule 28(2) read with Rule 9 of the bye-laws.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 12-06-2023 passed by the Returning Officer, and directed the Returning Officer to decide the objection afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties, within two days from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Election law
- Cooperative societies
- Bye-laws
- Nomination
- Eligibility criteria
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 21
WRIT PETITION NO.6332 OF 2023
Mr. N. B. Khandare for the petitioner, Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for the respondents/State, Mr. S. K. Kadam for respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Ram S/o. Nivrutti Zinjurde
The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Co-operative Marketing and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai; The District Cooperative Election Officer, and Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Nanded; Returning Officer, Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Vasmat; Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Vasmat through its Managing Director; Dhondiram Balasaheb Pardikar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the decision of the Returning Officer accepting nomination of respondent No.5 in the election of a sugar factory.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the Returning Officer's order dated 12-06-2023 and to reject the nomination of respondent No.5.
Filing Reason
Petitioner objected to respondent No.5's nomination on the ground that he supplied sugarcane from outside the factory's area of operation, violating Rule 28(2) read with Rule 9 of the bye-laws.
Previous Decisions
Returning Officer overruled the objection on 12-06-2023, recording that there was insufficient proof.
Issues
Whether the Returning Officer erred in accepting the nomination of respondent No.5 despite the objection regarding violation of bye-laws.
Whether the Returning Officer properly examined the eligibility criteria under Rule 28(2) read with Rule 9 of the bye-laws.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent No.5 supplied sugarcane from outside the factory's area of operation, contravening Rule 28(2) read with Rule 9 of the bye-laws.
Respondent No.5 accepted that he supplied sugarcane from outside the jurisdiction but contended there was no restriction to bring sugarcane from outside.
Ratio Decidendi
The Returning Officer must strictly examine the eligibility criteria prescribed in the bye-laws before accepting a nomination. Failure to do so renders the acceptance erroneous and liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
One of the contesting members in the election to the sugar factory has filed this petition aggrieved by the decision dated 12-06-2023 taken by the Returning Officer overruling objection in respect of acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No.5.
Rule 28 Sub-Rule 2 requires a member of the sugar factory to supply the sugarcane at least for three seasons out of five preceding crushing seasons. It also requires that said sugarcane should be grown in the village within the area of operation of the sugar factory as required under Rule 9.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the Returning Officer's order dated 12-06-2023. The court heard the matter on 23-06-2023 and allowed the petition, setting aside the order and directing a fresh decision within two days.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960:
