JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. By the present Writ Petitions, the petitioner is challenging order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the District Co-operative Election Officer – respondent no.2 wherein objections of the petitioner to the nomination of respondent no.3 were overruled. The notices were issued in the present Writ Petitions on 07.01.2023, which were made returnable on 12.01.2023 on account of urgency. These Writ Petitions were listed on 12th January, 2023 but did not reach and were taken up for hearing on 13th January, 2023. On 13.01.2023, it was observed that none appears for respondent no.3 although bailiff report shows that respondent No.3 is served on 10.1.2023. The petitioner was again permitted to serve respondent no.3 by all modes including RPAD, E-mail etc. and the matters were listed for hearing today i.e. on 16.01.2023 at 10.30 a.m.

3. Today, the petitioner has shown print out of Whats-app message that the petitioner has again intimated to respondent no.3 about listing of the Writ Petitions today for hearing. Hence, the matters are taken up for hearing today. Both the Petitions are identical on facts and hence taken up together for hearing.

4. The petitioner is the member of the Yogeshwar Nagari Credit Co-operative Society, Dhule. The respondent no. 2 – the District Co-operative Election Officer published election programme for Yogeshwar Nagari Credit Cooperative Society, Dhule on 25.12.2022. As per the election programme, last date for filing the nomination was 30.12.2022. The respondent no.3 in both the writ petitions filed their nominations for contesting the elections to the post of members of the Managing Committee of the society. The petitioner filed his objection on 02.01.2023. The objection was specific that the respondent no.3 in both the writ petitions were guarantors to the defaulter of loans given by the Yogeshwar Nagari Credit Co-operative Society, Dhule to Pruthvi Builders and Developers, Pruthvi Properties, Pruthvi Builders etc. It was specifically pointed out in the objection application that the bye laws of the society specifically provides for barring a guarantor of a defaulted loan from contesting election of the co-operative society. The respondent no.2, by order dated 3rd January, 2023, rejected objections of the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision to reject nomination of the candidate, who is a guarantor to a loan which is defaulted in terms of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and bye laws of the Society.

5. The impugned order specifically observed that the official of the society along with record appeared before him and the society from its record has pointed out that the respondent no. 3 in both the writ petitions are guarantors of the loan account, which is being defaulted. The same position has also not been contested by the representative of the respondent no.3 before the respondent no.2. However, the contention of the society as well as respondent no.3 before the Election Officer – respondent no.2 was that a guarantor to a loan which has been defaulted cannot be disqualified as there is no such provision under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and bye laws of the society to disqualify a ‘guarantor’ of a loan which is defaulted.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is specific bye laws no. 4 (17) and 44 (9) of the society in respect of defaulter. The learned counsel further submits that this Court in Writ Petition No.11516/2022 [Shri Gopalrao Kashinath Kele & others Vs. The State Cooperative Election Authority & others] decided on 28.11.2022 has specifically observed that the bye laws no.4 (17) of the society, bars a ‘guarantor’ of a loan which has been defaulted from being a voter of the society. In the aforesaid judgment in the case of Shri Gopalrao Kashinath Kele & others Vs. The State Co-operative Election Authority & others (supra), this Court has considered the bye-l