Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Nomination in Co-operative Society Election. Returning Officer's Order Set Aside for Non-Compliance with Natural Justice and Statutory Requirements Under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 81
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Mr. Anil Bhanudas Chaudhari, a fair price shop license holder, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 14.03.2022 passed by Respondent No.2, the Returning Officer of Aadivasi Vividh Karyakari Co-operative Society, Chandankheda, rejecting his nomination form for the election of the society. The petitioner sought a declaration that the impugned order is per se illegal, arbitrary, and not in accordance with law, and prayed for its quashing and setting aside. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra, the Returning Officer, the Tahsil Co-operative Election Officer, the society itself, and one Shri Suresh Mahadeo Shrirame. The court, presided over by Justice V.G. Bisht, heard the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, and the Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. A.M. Kadukar. The court found that the impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without assigning any reasons, which violated principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Returning Officer to accept the petitioner's nomination form and proceed with the election in accordance with law. The court also directed that the election process be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

Headnote

A) Co-operative Law - Election - Rejection of Nomination - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - The Returning Officer rejected the petitioner's nomination without providing any opportunity of hearing or giving reasons. The court held that such rejection is per se illegal and arbitrary, and set aside the order, directing the Returning Officer to accept the nomination and proceed with the election. (Paras 1-9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 14.03.2022 rejecting the petitioner's nomination form for the election of Aadivasi Vividh Karyakari Co-operative Society, Chandankheda is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2022, and directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination form of the petitioner and proceed with the election in accordance with law. The election process was directed to be completed within four weeks from the date of the order.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • Right to contest election
  • Rejection of nomination
  • Co-operative societies
  • Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (03) 92

Writ Petition No. 1723 of 2022

2022-03-29

V.G. Bisht

Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar (for petitioner), Mr. A.M. Kadukar (AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2)

Mr. Anil Bhanudas Chaudhari

State of Maharashtra, Returning Officer, Tahsil Co-operative Election Officer, Aadivasi Vividh Co-operative Society, Chandankheda, and Shri Suresh Mahadeo Shrirame

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of nomination form for election to a co-operative society.

Remedy Sought

Declaration that the impugned order dated 14.03.2022 rejecting the petitioner's nomination is illegal and arbitrary, and quashing of the said order.

Filing Reason

The petitioner's nomination form for the election of Aadivasi Vividh Karyakari Co-operative Society, Chandankheda was rejected by the Returning Officer vide order dated 14.03.2022.

Issues

Whether the impugned order rejecting the nomination is illegal and arbitrary? Whether the Returning Officer complied with principles of natural justice?

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without any opportunity of hearing and without assigning reasons, making it per se illegal and arbitrary. The respondents did not file any counter affidavit or make submissions opposing the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The rejection of a nomination form without providing an opportunity of hearing and without assigning reasons is per se illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice. The Returning Officer must comply with statutory requirements and natural justice before rejecting a nomination.

Judgment Excerpts

By the present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made following prayers:- Hold and declare that the impugned Order dated 14.03.2022 (Annex-D) passed by Respondent No.2-Returning Officer... is per se illegal, arbitrary and does not stand to the scrutiny of law; Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2022 (Annex-D)...

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition on 29.03.2022 challenging the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination. The court heard the matter on the same day and passed the judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
  • Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Government Appeal Against Declaration of Lapsed Land Acquisition Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Possession Taken Prior to Act...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment Allowing Sales Tax Exemption to Assessee Under Industrial Policy Resolutions. Exemption Requires Manufacturing Activity and Emergence of New Goods; High Court Failed to Examine Actual Process and Statutory...