Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the District Co-operative Returning Officer rejecting the petitioners' objection to a provisional voters list published under the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. The dispute arose in the context of elections to the managing committee of a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioners claimed to be members of the society, which came into existence in 2013 with 41 founder members. A provisional voters list prepared under Section 26 of the Act had been finalized on 28 January 2020, but elections were postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Pursuant to a State amendment vide Maharashtra Act XI of 2021 dated 16 June 2021, all members including defaulters were permitted to participate. However, when a fresh provisional voters list was published on 22 October 2021, the petitioners' names were excluded. They raised an objection, and after a hearing conducted by the Assistant Registrar, the District Co-operative Returning Officer rejected the objection, relying on a report that the petitioners had tendered resignations on 27 August 2017 and the society had accepted them by Resolution No. 3 dated 30 August 2017. The petitioners contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice because the hearing was before the Assistant Registrar but the decision was by the Returning Officer, and no reasons were assigned. They asserted that no resignations were ever tendered and sought quashing of the order and inclusion of their names. The respondents argued that under Rule 8 of the Election Rules, the Returning Officer had only a summary jurisdiction and could not adjudicate disputed questions of membership. They relied on Dhondiba Parshuram Kakade v. Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, and Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade v. State Election Commission to contend that the preparation of voters list is an intermediate stage in the election process and that the appropriate remedy was a dispute under Section 91 of the Act. They also emphasized that the register of members was prima facie evidence of membership and that no names appeared in the register. The court identified the primary legal issues as whether the Returning Officer could decide disputed membership questions in a summary inquiry and whether the writ petition was maintainable at an intermediate stage of election. On analysis, the court observed that there were vital disputed questions of fact regarding membership and resignation, which could not be scrutinized in writ jurisdiction. It examined the scope of Rule 8 of the Election Rules, noting that the inquiry is summary and limited to omissions and errors in the voters list, as held in Dhondiba Parshuram Kakade. The register of members maintained under the Act is prima facie evidence of membership and cannot be upset in such a summary proceeding. If the petitioners had a genuine dispute regarding membership, they should raise it under Section 91 of the Act. The court also noted the full bench decision in Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade, which held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised at an intermediate stage of election. Applying these principles, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, discharging the rule.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Law - Election Voters List - Summary Enquiry - Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, Rule 8; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 38(2) - The District Co-operative Returning Officer's jurisdiction under Rule 8 is summary and limited to correcting omissions or errors in provisional voters lists and cannot decide disputed questions of membership or resignation. Held that the register of members is prima facie evidence of membership and cannot be upset in a summary enquiry; the officer could not have decided the membership dispute and the appropriate forum was under Section 91. (Paras 9-10) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Intermediate Stage of Election - Disputed Questions of Fact - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 91 - The court declined to entertain a writ petition involving vital disputed questions of fact regarding membership during an intermediate stage of election, noting that preparation of voters list is an intermediate stage and the remedy lies in a dispute under Section 91. Held that the writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed. (Paras 9, 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent no.2 under Rule 8 of Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 could decide disputed questions of membership or resignation; whether writ petition maintainable during intermediate stage of election involving disputed facts.
Final Decision
The Writ Petition was dismissed and the Rule was discharged.
Law Points
- Summary inquiry under Rule 8 of Election Rules limited to omissions/errors
- Register of members prima facie evidence
- Disputed membership cannot be decided in summary inquiry
- Writ not maintainable for factual disputes in intermediate election stage
- Remedy under Section 91
