Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by members of the managing committee of the Amravati District Central Cooperative Society, challenging the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioners contended that the amendment, which excluded Type A societies from the protection of continuing in office after the expiry of their term, was discriminatory and unconstitutional. They sought various reliefs, including a writ of mandamus to conduct elections and to allow the existing committee to continue functioning. The State opposed the petition, citing a previous judgment that upheld the amendment's validity. The court analyzed the arguments, focusing on the classification of societies and the legislative intent behind the amendment. It concluded that the exclusion of Type A societies was rational and aligned with the democratic principles governing cooperative societies. The court emphasized that the right to hold office was not a fundamental right but a statutory one, and the amendment did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the amendment's constitutionality and the State's authority to withdraw the concession granted during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Amendment Validity - Challenge to Amendment - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 73AAA - Petitioners challenged the amendment excluding Type A societies from protection to continue in office after term expiry, arguing it violated Article 14. Court held that the amendment was constitutional as it aligned with the legislative intent and did not infringe upon any vested rights (Paras 3-49).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to sub-section (3) of Section 73AAA of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, excluding Type A societies from protection, is unconstitutional.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the amendment to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, excluding Type A societies from protection, was constitutional and did not violate Article 14.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity
- Amendment
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960
- Article 14
- Classification
- Democratic principles
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (10) 110
Writ Petition No. 7071 of 2026
Anil S. Kilor, Rajnish R. Vyas
Omprakash Alias Bachhubhau Babaraoji Kadu, Abhijit Pravin Dhepe, Sudhakar Narayanrao Bharsakale, Nareshchandra Panjabraoji Thakare, Ajay Shankarrao Mehkare, Jayprakash Dayaramji Patel, Dayaramji Sanu Kale, Anand Nandkumar Kale, Sunil Gopalrao Varhade, Smt. Surekhatai Surendrapant Thakare, Chitratai Prashantrao Dahane
State of Maharashtra, State Co-operative Election Authority, District Co-operative Election Officer and Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati Division, Shri Gautam Wardhan, Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank Amravati Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus and other reliefs regarding the conduct of elections and continuation in office.
Filing Reason
Petitioners argued that the amendment was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Previous Decisions
Court referred to a prior judgment that upheld the validity of the amendment.
Issues
Whether the amendment excluding Type A societies from protection is unconstitutional.
Whether the petitioners have a right to continue in office after the expiry of their term.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued the amendment violated Article 14 and was arbitrary.
State contended the amendment was constitutional and aligned with legislative intent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the right to hold office in a cooperative society is statutory and not a fundamental right, and the exclusion of Type A societies from the protection of continuing in office after term expiry was rational and aligned with the legislative intent.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are the members of the managing committee of the respondent No.5, Amravati District Central Cooperative Societies.
The protection granted to all the societies to continue as members of the society after expiry of the term... has been withdrawn for the type A societies.
The right to hold the office is restricted to the term fixed by the statute.
The exclusion of Type 'A' societies from protection to continue in office after expiry of the term can be said to be in consonance with the Act of 1960 and the Constitution of India.
The court held that the right to hold office in a cooperative society is statutory and not a fundamental right.
Procedural History
The petition was filed challenging the amendment to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The court heard arguments from both sides regarding the constitutionality of the amendment and the implications for Type A societies.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: Section 73AAA
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014: Rule 4
