The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition challenging any intermediate stage of the election process cannot be entertained, and the only remedy is to file an Election Petition under the provisions of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. By this petition, petitioners challenge orders dated 28.10.2022 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharur, cancelling their licenses as traders in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee. They also challenge consequential order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the District Election Officer/District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies deleting their names from the provisional voters list.

3. The election programme to the APMC, Dharur has been declared on 03.09.2022. The programme envisaged inter alia publication of provisional voters list on 12.10.2022, invitation of objections thereto between 12.10.2022 to 21.10.2022 and decision on the objections between 21.10.2022 to 31.10.2022.

4. In the light of the fact that the election programme is already declared, I straightaway put across to Mr. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as to how present petition can be entertained in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Dattatray Genaba Lole and Ors. Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Pune and Ors., Writ Petition No.5878/2021 decided on 26.11.2021. In that judgment, this Court has held that writ petition challenging any of the intermediate stages of election process cannot be entertained and the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file an Election Petition under the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Rule 78 of the Election Rules, 2014.

5. Confronted with this position, Mr. Kale, has attempted to canvas before me that the illegalities committed by the authorities while cancellation of lincenses of the petitioners and deletion of their names from the provisional voters list are so glaring that this Court would be justified in entertaining the present petition rather than relegating them to alternate remedy of filing Election Petitions. The contentions of Mr. Kale are being dealt with only for the limited purpose of examining whether any gross case is made out for entertaining the present petition contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dattatray Genaba Lole (supra).

6. The petitioners are the license holders of APMC, Dharur and their licenses have been renewed from time to time. The respondent no.8 sought cancellation of licenses of the petitioners by making representation dated 26.09.2022 inter alia on the ground that the licenses were procured solely for the purpose of participation in the election process and that the petitioners were not doing any business/transaction in the APMC in any manner. While the complaint of respondent no.8 was pending, the election programme was declared on 03.09.2022 and a provisional voters list in pursuance thereof was published on 12.10.2022. The provisional voters list included the names of the petitioners. Therefore, respondent no.8 filed his objection to the provisional voters list on 28.10.2022 and sought deletion of names of the petitioners therefrom. In the meantime, show cause notices were issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dharur to the petitioners calling them upon to show cause as to why their licenses shall not be cancelled. After hearing the petitioners, orders were passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 28.10.2022 cancelling the licenses of the petitioners on the ground that they had not conducted any business/transaction within the jurisdiction of APMC, Dharur. Consequent upon cancellation of their licenses, the District Election Officer (APMC) has proceeded to delete the names of the petitioners from the provisional voters list by order dated 31.10.2022.

7. Appearing for the petitioners Mr. Kale, learned counsel would refer to the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation)