Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dinkar Uttamrao Patil and Pundlik Raoji Pawar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the acceptance of the nomination form of respondent No. 4, Popatrao Kautik Sonawane, for the elections to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Sakri, District Dhule. The petitioners contended that respondent No. 4 was disqualified from contesting the election because he was a defaulter in repayment of a loan taken from a cooperative society, namely the Indave Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indave. The disqualification was based on Section 16 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (M.S. Act), which incorporates the disqualifications under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, including Section 49 thereof, which disqualifies a person who is a defaulter of a cooperative society. The petitioners argued that the Returning Officer (respondent No. 3) had erroneously accepted the nomination despite a certificate from the cooperative society confirming the default. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the Returning Officer, opposed the petition, but the court found merit in the petitioners' submissions. The court examined the certificate issued by the cooperative society and held that it clearly established that respondent No. 4 was a defaulter. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the acceptance of the nomination form of respondent No. 4, and directed the Returning Officer to proceed with the election process in accordance with law. The court also made the rule absolute and disposed of the petition.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Disqualification of Candidate - Default in Loan Repayment - Section 16 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 read with Section 49 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The petitioners challenged acceptance of nomination of respondent No. 4 for election to Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sakri, on ground that he was disqualified as a defaulter of a cooperative society. The court held that respondent No. 4 was a defaulter as per certificate issued by the cooperative society, and the Returning Officer ought to have rejected the nomination. The court allowed the petition and set aside the acceptance of nomination. (Paras 1-6) B) Cooperative Societies - Defaulter - Certificate of Default - Section 49 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The court relied on the certificate issued by the cooperative society showing that respondent No. 4 was a defaulter in repayment of loan. The court held that such certificate is sufficient to disqualify a candidate under Section 16 of the M.S. Act. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Returning Officer erred in accepting the nomination of respondent No. 4 despite his disqualification under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, read with Section 49 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, due to default in repayment of loan to a cooperative society.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the acceptance of the nomination form of respondent No. 4, and directed the Returning Officer to proceed with the election process in accordance with law. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Election law
- Cooperative societies
- Disqualification of candidates
- Default in repayment of loan
- Agricultural Produce Market Committee elections
- Section 16 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963
- Section 49 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- 1960
