Case Note & Summary
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, a writ petition was filed by thirteen elected members of the Managing Committee of Swayambhunagar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960, challenging an order dated 15 November 2022 passed by the District Cooperative Election Officer-cum-District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Pune (Rural), disqualifying them under Rule 66 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 for failure to lodge election expense accounts within prescribed time. The election process for the society's Managing Committee was initiated in February 2022; petitioners contested along with respondent nos. 7 to 19. Election results were declared on 5 April 2022, and petitioners were elected. The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Baramati, constituted the Managing Committee on 11 April 2022. Petitioners claimed they filed election expense accounts with the Returning Officer on 14 June 2022. Respondent No.6, a member of the society, filed a complaint on 13 July 2022 alleging that petitioners failed to file accounts within 60 days as provided under Rules 66 and 67 of the Election Rules. After obtaining a report from the Taluka Cooperative Election Officer and issuing show cause notice, the District Cooperative Election Officer passed the impugned disqualification order on 15 November 2022, barring petitioners from committee membership for three years. The petitioners raised several grounds: that only the Registrar, not the District Cooperative Election Officer, had jurisdiction; that respondent No.6 lacked locus standi as he did not contest the elections; and that the officer erroneously held there was no provision for condonation of delay under Rule 66(b), ignoring valid justification. Respondents opposed the petition, contending that alternate remedy of revision under Section 154 of the Act existed and that the District Deputy Registrar had delegated powers. The main legal issues framed by the court were whether an alternate remedy of filing Revision under Section 154 of the Act exists against an order under Rule 66 of the Election Rules, and if so, whether the writ petition should be entertained in the peculiar facts. The court examined the statutory framework under Section 73CB and Rules 65 to 67, noting the provisions for election expense accounts and disqualification. The extracted judgment text does not record the final operative decision, but the court was analyzing maintainability and jurisdiction at length.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Alternate Remedy - Revision under Section 154 of Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 against disqualification order under Rule 66 of Election Rules - Preliminary objection to maintainability of writ petition was raised on ground of availability of equally efficacious statutory revision; petitioners contended no revision lies against an order passed under Election Rules by an election authority - The court was tasked to answer whether such remedy exists and whether petition can be entertained (Paras 1, 7, 11). B) Cooperative Law - Jurisdiction of Disqualification Authority - Section 73CB read with Rule 66 of Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 - Petitioners argued only Registrar is empowered to disqualify; State Election Authority submitted that powers of Registrar have been delegated to District Deputy Registrar for Baramati Taluka vide Notification dated 11/09/2012 - The court was to decide whether District Cooperative Election Officer acted as delegate of Registrar (Paras 5, 8). C) Cooperative Law - Locus Standi to Seek Disqualification - Sections 91 and Rule 66 of Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 and Election Rules - Petitioners contended that only a contesting candidate can file complaint for disqualification; Respondent No.6 did not contest and therefore lacked standing; respondent argued violation of mandatory rules - The court considered arguments on locus (Paras 5, 7). D) Cooperative Law - Condonation of Delay in Filing Election Expense Accounts - Rule 66(b) of Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 - Petitioners contended District Cooperative Election Officer erroneously held no condonation provision; they submitted valid justification which was not considered; respondent characterized justification as vague - The court was to examine whether good reason or justification under clause (b) was required to be considered (Paras 6-7). E) Cooperative Law - Election Expenses Account Filing - Rules 65, 67 of Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 - Mandatory filing within sixty days from declaration of results; results declared 05/04/2022 and accounts lodged 14/06/2022 after 68 days; respondent relied on admitted delay - The court noted the factual matrix (Paras 4, 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an alternate remedy of filing Revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 exists against an order passed by the Registrar disqualifying member(s) of committee under Rule 66 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014; and if such remedy exists, whether the writ petition can be entertained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Law Points
- Statutory remedy of revision under Section 154 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960 is relevant to maintainability of writ petition
- District Co-operative Election Officer is empowered under Rule 66 of Election Rules to disqualify on failure to lodge election expenses
- Rule 66(b) permits good reason or justification for failure
- locus standi to seek disqualification may be restricted to contesting candidate
- election expenses accounts must be lodged within time specified in Rules 65 and 67 of Election Rules
- District Deputy Registrar may exercise powers of Registrar through delegation.
