ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Addl. Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Prasanna Chandikar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the list of valid nominations dated 09.08.2019 in relation to the elections of the Board of Directors of the Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (GSCBL). In the alternate, the petitioners seek for appropriate writs, orders or directions to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to accept their nomination papers, which according to him have wrongfully been rejected and to further, reject the nomination paper of respondent No. 4 which, according to them has been wrongfully accepted.

3. Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel at the outset pointed out that part DOB of the Constitution which has made special provisions in relation to Co-operative Societies, does not have any provision akin to Article 243(Z)(G) or Article 243-O, which relates to bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters concerning Municipalities and Panchayats. He points out that a provision like Article 329-A which relates to bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters in elections to the State Legislative Assembly or to parliament is also not found in Part IX-B of the Constitution which relates to Co-operative Societies. He therefore, submits that the principles governing interference by Courts in electoral matters, particularly at the stage where the result of the election is yet to be declared, will not specifically apply to the present petition, which relates to elections to the co-operative society i.e. GSCBL.

4. Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel points out that the bye-laws under which the nominations of the petitioners are purported to be rejected are themselves ultra vires and unconstitutional. He however, fairly points out that Writ Petition bearing Stamp (Main) No. 2347/2019 and Stamp Number (Appln) No. 2701/2019 was instituted by Shiroda Labour Contract Co-operative Society ltd to challenge these bye-laws. This petition has been admitted but no interim order was however made.

5. Therefore, Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel submits that his contentions in the present petition proceed without prejudice, on the basis that the bye-laws in question are valid. He submits that even in terms of these amended bye-laws, nomination of the petitioners could not be rejected nor the nomination of the respondent No. 4 could be accepted. He submits that the returning officer has not even passed a speaking order but states the nomination stands rejected for the alleged non compliance to the provisions of the bye-laws of the society.

6. Mr. Lawande points out that in so far as the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 are concerned, the alleged disqualification is in terms of the bye-laws 30(A)(16). He submits that from the material placed on record, it is very apparent that there is compliance with the provisions of this particular bye-law. He points out that the material, in the form of audit report or balance sheet, amply establishes that the category of the society for which these petitioners seek to represent have been in profit for three out of five years; they have been classified as Class B societies and further they have distributed dividends to its members of not less than 5%. He therefore, submits that there was absolutely no good ground to reject their nomination papers based perhaps, upon some interpretation of the bye-laws which bye-laws are totally unreasonable and unconstitutional.

7. Mr. Lawande submits that insofar as the petitioner No. 4 is concerned, the alleged disqualification is by reference to bye-law No. 30(A) (14) (i) or (ii). He submits that such disqualification is founded on vague terms. He submits that otherwise, the material on record very clearly establishes that the petitioner No. 2 fulfills the requirements of the concerned bye-laws. He submits that the society whom the petitio