The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 73CA(1)(f)(ii) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which prescribes the disqualification of a person who is a defaulter of a primary agricultural credit co-operative society or is an office bearer of a defaulting primary agricultural co-operative credit society from being appointed, nominated, elected, or co-opted as a member of the committee.

ORDER

1. Heard finally at admission stage by consent of the parties.

2. By this Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by Respondent No.1 - Election Officer, rejecting the objection of the petitioner filed against deletion of his name from the provisional voters list for the elections of Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.(hereafter referred to as 'NDCC Bank') and thereby refused to include the name of the petitioner in the final voters list of the said NDCC Bank.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 - Election Officer has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the society of which, the petitioner is a nominee, is a defaulter of the NDCC Bank and thus the petitioner is not entitled for inclusion of his name in the voters list. The learned counsel submits that the society is not declared as a defaulter as per the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the order impugned is illegal and liable for quashed and set aside.

4. The learned counsel submits that for the elections of the NDCC Bank for the year 2021-2026, respondent No.1 -Election Officer has started the process for preparation of voters list and invited the names of the representatives to be sent by its society. Accordingly, the meeting of respondent No.3 - Society was held and the name of the petitioner, who is a office bearer of the said Society, is referred as a delegate to include his name in the voters list. The learned counsel submits that after publication of the provisional voters list on 14.01.2021, it was found that the name of the petitioner is deleted from the provisional voters list. Thus, the petitioner has raised the detailed objection to the voters list on 25.01.2021 itself and requested respondent No.1 - Election Officer to include his name in the final voters list.

5. The learned counsel submits that respondent No.1 being an Election Officer ought to have applied his own legal mind to the objection, however, respondent No.2 - Assistant Registrar has called the petitioner for hearing by issuing a notice dated 25.01.2021 and he has decided the objection on 26.01.2021. Respondent No.2 - Assistant Registrar has submitted the report to respondent No.1 - Election Officer as not to include the name of the petitioner in the voters list for the reason that respondent No.3 - Society is a defaulter of NDCC Bank. The learned counsel submits that in order to deprive the petitioner from exercising his voting rights, deliberately mischief has been played for declaring the society as a defaulter. The learned counsel submits that the Chairman of the NDCC Bank is a political opponent of the petitioner and in view of the same, name of the petitioner has been removed from the voters list illegally.

6. The learned counsel submits that respondent No.1 -Election Officer being an authority has not given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It appears that respondent No.1 - Election Officer has relied on the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar and passed the order. The learned counsel submits that, unless, after following due process of law, it is declared that the society is defaulter, name of the petitioner cannot be denied to be included in the voters list. The learned counsel submits that as long as the society is not declared as defaulter, the name of the petitioner is required to be included in the voters list. The learned counsel submits that in case, if the society was held as defaulter after following the due process of law, the general body members of the society could have called the meeting for recommending the name of any other member as a delegate of the society.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his contentions placed his reliance on the following cases:

(i) Pandurang Baburao Lhase and others Vs. Returning Officer @ Co-operative Officer and others, reported in 2016(6) BCR 92.

(ii)