SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
V.K. Jadhav, J.
Smt. Usha Bhaginath Bhaga - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2393 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Niteen V. Gaware, for the Appellant / Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, Mr. S.K. Kadam, Mr. S.N. Gaikwad, Mr. S.T. Shelke, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the prima facie evidence of the membership register and the limitations on the jurisdiction of deciding the claims and objections to the voters list.

Headnote:

Voters List - Challenge to Deletion - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960, Section 27, Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rule 2014 - The court discussed the legality and validity of the order deleting the names of the petitioners from the voters list of respondent No.4 society. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 27 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 and Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rule 2014, and highlighted the limitations on the jurisdiction of deciding the claims and objections to the voters list and the prima facie evidence of the membership register.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the order deleting their names from the voters list of respondent No.4 society, claiming to be duly enrolled members. The respondent No.3 had deleted their names, alleging irregularities in the loan sanctioning process and their inactive membership status.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were duly enrolled members as per the membership register, and the deletion of their names from the voters list was not justified. The court also noted that the provisions of Section 27 of the Societies Act were not applicable due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of deleting the petitioners' names from the voters list, their membership status, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the application of relevant provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deletion of names from the voters list was not justified, and the provisions of Section 27 of the Societies Act were not applicable due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court refused the prayer for stay.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby deleting the names of the petitioners from the voters list of respondent No.4 society.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are duly and legally enrolled members of respondent No.4 society. They have been enrolled as members by following due process of law from the period ranging from 2014-15 to 2017-18. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 17 have voted in the election of respondent No.4 society held in the year 2014-15. However, by impugned order dated 12.01.2021, the respondent No.3 has deleted the names of the petitioners from the voters list, illegally and arbitrarily. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners being eligible enrolled members of respondent No.4 society, in order to avail the financial assistance, had applied to respondent No.4 society and the managing committee members of respondent No.4 society have found their applications complete in all respects. Learned counsel submits that the name of the petitioners are continued in the membership register and said membership register is conclusive proof with regard to the membership of the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the election of respondent No.4 society held in the year 2015, the term of the said committee came to be expired on 18.2.2020. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have taken steps for conducting the elections of respondent No.4 society on 17.01.2020. Respondent No.3 has published the programme for finalization of voters list. Respondent No.3 had called provisional voters list from respondent No.4 society. In terms of the provisions of section 27 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (for short "Societies Act") and the Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rule 2014 (for short "Rules of 2014") the provisional voters list was prepared. The cut-off date is two years prior to the expiry of the term of present managing committee. Accordingly, respondent No.4 society submitted the names to be included in the voters list to the office of respondent No.3. Though the names of the petitioners were included in the provisional voters list, as they were legally enrolled as members, certain persons on account of political rivalry in the village had filed false and baseless objections on 23.01.2020 for deleting the names of the petitioners from the voters list. Though respondent No.4 society has submitted necessary documents to the office of respondent No.3 District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar, however, those were not considered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.3 has exceeded its powers under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2014 and virtually exercised the powers under Section 11 of the Societies Act, which is not permissible. Learned counsel submits that the jurisdiction of deciding the claims and objections to the voters list is limited to the extent of error with regard to the names and whether the voters list tallies with the membership register maintained by the society.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of the provisions of Section 38 of the Societies Act, every society shall keep a register of its members and enter therein the members as detailed in sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Societies Act. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the sub-section (2) of section 38 of the Societies Act, the register shall be prima facie evidence of the date on which any person was admitted to membership, and of the date on which he ceased to be a member. Learned counsel submits that the cessation of membership in terms of Section 25 of the Societies Act is only on resignation, or on transfer of the whole of his share or interest in the society to another members, or on his death, or removal o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top