The main legal point established is that challenges to the election process for Co-operative Banks should be addressed through the procedure prescribed by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and not through Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

R.N.Laddha, J. - The controversy relates to elections to the Managing Committee of the Jalgaon and Latur District Central Co-operative Banks.

2. When the hearing of the petitions commenced, the learned Counsel for the respondents indicated that they proposed to raise the preliminary objection. They put the preliminary objection on the ground that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is a self-contained Code under which the petitioners have a specific alternate remedy and therefore interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction is not warranted. The question of law involved in this batch of petitions is common and therefore, these petitions are taken up for hearing together. To appreciate the controversy raised in these petitions, a few relevant facts in the first petition may be described.

3. The respondent no. 3 Returning Officer published the election programme of the election to the Managing Committee of respondent no.5 Bank. As per the election programme, the nomination forms were to be submitted between 11/10/2021 and 18/10/2021. The scrutiny was fixed on 20/10/2021 and final list of the eligible candidates would be published on 09/11/2021. A copy of the Election Programme is annexed to the petition as Exhibit-A. The name of the petitioner, in the capacity of delegate of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. Talegaon (BHO), is included in the Voters List. Govind son of Arjunrao Biradar, respondent no. 4 herein, has submitted his nomination paper on 14.10.2021 from Primary Agricultural Credit Societys Deoni constituency as a contesting candidate. On 20.10.2021, during scrutiny of the nomination papers, the petitioner had raised objection to the nomination paper of respondent no. 4, inter alia, contending that the respondent no. 4 and his family members were the directors of the company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. They were doing the business of trade and commerce and thus had substantial interest in the company and therefore, by virtue of Section 10A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, respondent no.4 attracted disqualification for becoming a member of the Managing Committee of the respondent Bank. The returning Officer/ Respondent no. 3 rejected the objection raised by the petitioner and accepted the nomination paper of respondent no. 4 by the impugned Order dated 21.10.2021.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order of respondent no. 3 the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition before this Court. By way of interim relief, the petitioner is also seeking stay to the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned Order dated 21.10.2021. In some of the petitions, it is the grievance of the petitioners that their nomination forms were rejected and in some of the petitions the objections raised by them to the nomination of respondents were rejected resulting in acceptance of the nominations of the respondents and in one petition prayer is made to add the petitioners name in the Voters List.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents - Returning Officers as also the learned Additional Government Pleader and learned Counsel for contesting parties.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners raised several contentions. According to them, the respondent Returning Officers have committed an error of law while scrutinizing the nomination papers and since the respondent Returning Officers have acted contrary to law their decisions deserve interference and if interim relief as prayed for is not granted, serious prejudice will be caused to the interest of the people at large. According to them the Honble Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs Returning Officer, AIR 1952 S.C. 64 nowhere deals with the election to the Co-operative Banks. In their view, in such cases, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to invoke Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent