JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 19.12.2022, passed by Respondent No.1/The District Co-operative Election Authority and the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies Nashik Division, Nashik, whereby he has allowed the application of Respondent No.3 and disqualified the petitioner as managing committee member of the Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”) and also disqualified the Petitioner from contesting elections of the Bank for a period of 3 years by exercising of the powers under Rule 66 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “Election Rules 2014”).

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. Heard Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate holding for Mr. A. V. Hon, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. V. H. Dighe, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Advocate holding for Mr. P. V. Barde, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Petition can be summarized as under:-

[i] That the general elections for electing the managing committee members of the Jalgaon District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Jalgaon for a term of 5 years from 2020-21 to 2025-2026 were held on 21.11.2021.

[ii] The Petitioner contested the said elections and she was declared elected as a member of the managing committee of the said Bank. The Petitioner did not submitted her account within the required 60 days period as contemplated under Rule 67 of the Election Rules 2014. She submitted the election expenses belatedly after a period of about 5 months from the last date of submitting the election expenses.

[iii] Respondent No.3 through an RTI application applied for the list of candidates, along with their election expenses. In the list provided by Respondent No.2 of the expenditure incurred by the candidates, it was noticed that the petitioner had not submitted her election expenditure.

[iv] Respondent No.3, thereafter, filed an application before Respondent No.1 to disqualify the Petitioner for not submitting the election expenditure. Notice was issued in the said application.

[v] Meanwhile, the Petitioner submitted the election expenditure and the explanation to the Returning Officer/Respondent No.2. There is some dispute as regards, whether the expenditure was submitted after the notice being served on the Petitioner. Be that as it may, the Petitioner submitted election expenditure with an explanation for delay in submitting the election expenditure and requested Respondent No.2 authority concerned to condone the delay in filing the election expenditure.

[vi] The authority constituted to receive election expenditure i.e. Respondent No.2 forwarded the request to Respondent No.1 with it’s observation that the delay needs to be condoned and explanation be accepted.

[vii] Respondent No.1 – authority, after considering the material forwarded by Respondent No.2 and the application filed by Respondent No.3, and the response of the Petitioner, by the impugned order dated 19.12.2022 disqualified the Petitioner for being an elected member of the Bank and further debarred her from being a member of Board of Directors of the Bank and being a member of Board of Directors of any cooperative society for the period of 3 years.

[viii] Hence, the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 19.12.2022 of Respondent No.1.

5. Mr. V. D. Hon, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner raises three fold contentions:-

[I] He submits that the authority, which passed the impugned order has merely recorded the submissions of the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 and has recorded conclusions without any examination of the material produced with the explanation for delay in submitting expenditure. He further submits that while non suiting an elected candidate, a serious scrutiny is requi