Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, Hemant Babanrao Gund, who was chairman of the Pune Lawyers Consumers Co-operative Society Ltd., challenging his disqualification from holding office for three years under Rule 66(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. The disqualification was imposed by the District Deputy Registrar, Pune, on 17 October 2024, and confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 16 December 2024, on the ground that he failed to lodge his election expenditure account within the prescribed time after the society elections held on 24 February 2023. The petitioner claimed that he contested as part of a panel with Respondent No. 1 and had entrusted the responsibility of filing accounts to him, and that he lodged the account on 26 September 2024 after realizing the default. The authorities found no good reason for the delay and disqualified him. The petitioner argued before the High Court that Rule 66(1) does not mandate automatic disqualification and that the District Deputy Registrar erroneously held there is no provision for condonation. He relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of a similar provision in the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act to contend that the disqualification was not mandatory. The respondents countered that Rule 66, read with Rule 67(1A), leaves the authority with no discretion once failure occurs, and that the petitioner's justification was not acceptable. The Court, per Justice Sandeep V. Marne, examined Rules 65, 66, and 67 and held that Rule 66(1) clearly requires two preconditions: failure to lodge account in time and manner, and absence of good reason or justification. Only if both are satisfied can the disqualification order be passed. Therefore, the authority's observation that there is no provision for condonation was legally erroneous because the rule itself allows for considering justification. However, the Court independently assessed the petitioner's justification on merits and found it lacking. The plea of having entrusted the task to a co-panel member was not a valid reason as each candidate is individually responsible. The delay of one year and five months and the lodging of the account only after the complaint showed lack of diligence and no genuine justification. Distinguishing the Supreme Court precedent cited, the Court held that the lower authorities' ultimate conclusion was correct. The petition was dismissed, and the interim stay vacated, with no order as to costs. The decision underscores that candidates under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules bear personal responsibility for timely filing of election expense accounts.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Societies – Disqualification for Failure to Lodge Election Expenses – Interpretation of Rule 66(1) – Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, Rules 65, 66, 67 – Rule 66(1) requires two conditions for disqualification: (a) failure to lodge account in time and manner, and (b) no good reason or justification; disqualification is not automatic and the authority has power to consider justification – Held that the District Deputy Registrar erred in observing there is no provision for condonation, but Rule 66 inherently permits considering good reason (Paras 8-9)
B) Cooperative Societies – Responsibility of Candidate – Good Reason for Delay – Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, Rules 65(4), 67(1A) – Every contesting candidate must lodge election expenses within 60 days; delegation to co-panelist not a valid reason for delay – The petitioner's excuse of entrusting the task to a co-panel member and lodging account one year five months after election and only after complaint did not constitute good reason – Held that despite error in legal reasoning by lower authorities, the conclusion that no good reason existed was correct and disqualification upheld (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disqualification under Rule 66(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 is mandatory upon failure to lodge election expenses within time, and whether the petitioner's explanation constituted 'good reason or justification' to avoid disqualification.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that although the lower authorities misconstrued the rule as providing no scope for condonation, the petitioner's justification on merits did not constitute good reason. The disqualification was upheld, interim stay vacated, and no costs imposed.
Law Points
- Rule 66(1) disqualification not automatic
- authority must consider good reason or justification
- each elected candidate individually responsible for lodging election expenses within 60 days under Rule 65(4) read with Rule 67(1A)
- entrusting responsibility to co-panel member not valid justification for delay
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 216
WRIT PETITION NO. 605 OF 2025
Mr. Kishor Patil, Mr. Anish Kikle, Ms. Akshada Nagrale, Mr. Pratik B. Rahade, Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, Mr. Ajinkya Jagdale, Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar
Laxman Baban Ghule and Ors
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders disqualifying the petitioner from being a committee member of any cooperative society for three years.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the orders dated 17 October 2024 and 16 December 2024 and setting aside the disqualification.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was disqualified for failure to lodge election expenditure account within the prescribed time after society elections, and the authorities rejected his justification, prompting the petition.
Previous Decisions
District Deputy Registrar disqualified the petitioner on 17 October 2024; Divisional Joint Registrar dismissed the revision on 16 December 2024.
Issues
Whether the disqualification under Rule 66(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 is mandatory upon failure to lodge election expenses within the prescribed time, or whether the authority has the power to consider good reason or justification for the delay.
Whether the petitioner's explanation of entrusting the responsibility to a co-panel member and lodging the account after one year and five months constituted good reason or justification.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that Rule 66(1) does not make disqualification mandatory; the authority can condone delay if good reason exists, and the District Deputy Registrar erred by stating there is no provision for condonation. Relying on Laxmibai v. Collector Nanded, he contended that each case must be examined and disqualification is not automatic.
The respondents argued that Rule 66, read with Rule 67(1A) prescribing a 60-day limit, is mandatory; once failure is established, disqualification must follow. The petitioner's justification of entrusting the task to a co-panelist cannot excuse the gross delay and lack of diligence, and the authority correctly refused to accept it.
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 66(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 requires two conditions: failure to lodge election expenses in time and manner, and absence of good reason or justification. Disqualification is not automatic; the authority must consider the justification offered. Each elected candidate is individually responsible for lodging the account within 60 days under Rule 65(4) read with Rule 67(1A). Entrusting the task to a co-panelist does not absolve a candidate of this statutory duty, especially when there is gross delay and the account is lodged only after a complaint is filed. In the absence of good reason, the disqualification stands.
Judgment Excerpts
Rule 66 requires two conditions to be fulfilled for the District Co-operative Election Officer to make a report to the Registrar. The first condition is failure on the part of the candidate to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required under Rule 65 and Rule 67. The second condition is absence of good reason or justification for such failure. It is only when these twin conditions are met that the District Co-operative Election Officer can make a report to Registrar and the Registrar can make an order of disqualification after grant of opportunity of hearing to the candidate concerned.
The justification offered by the Petitioner that he had entrusted the job of filing account of election expenses to Respondent No.1 cannot be accepted. Each candidate is individually responsible for lodging of account of election expenses. The Petitioner cannot seek to shift his own burden to the co-panelist. As against the time limit of 60 days, the Petitioner lodged account of election expenses after one year and five months and that too after filing of complaint by Respondent No.1. Therefore, such belated lodging of account of election expenses cannot be accepted as a good reason.
Procedural History
Society elections held on 24 February 2023; results declared same day. Petitioner elected as chairman. Respondent No.1 filed complaint on 28 June 2024 seeking disqualification for failure to lodge election expenses. District Deputy Registrar passed disqualification order on 17 October 2024. Petitioner filed Revision Application No. 410 of 2024, dismissed by Divisional Joint Registrar on 16 December 2024. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 605 of 2025; on 14 January 2025, High Court stayed the disqualification; petition admitted on 6 March 2025. Final hearing expedited at instance of respondent, judgment delivered on 29 July 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014: Rule 66(1), Rule 65, Rule 67(1A)
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: Section 14-B
