JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Mr. Sakhare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Returning Officer committed serious error in rejecting the nominations of the petitioners by relying upon Bye-Laws No. 31 of Bye-Laws of the Bank and the Additional Commissioner also seriously erred in sustaining the said order. According to Mr. Sakhare, the disqualification for being elected to the committee of respondent No. 4 society which is specified society is governed by section 144-E of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and while scrutinizing the nomination papers, the Returning Officer has to act in accordance with Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971. Mr. Sakhare contends that bye laws have no statutory force and cannot be equated with the statutory provision and even if Bye-Laws No. 31 of Bye-Laws of the society provided for eligibility for election for director, the same could not have been considered in view of the provisions of section 144-E of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In support of his contention Mr. Sakhare, relied on the decision of the Apex Court in (Babaji Kondaji Gar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document