The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules 2003 and Bye-law 20.1.6 in determining the eligibility of representative members to contest elections, and highlighted the availability of alternate and efficacious remedies under Sec. 83 of the Goa Cooperative Society Act, 2002.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. V. A. Lawande and Mr. P. Redkar for the Petitioners, Mr. Manish Salkar, Government Advocate for the Respondent-State and Mr. Shivan Desai and Mr. A. D. Bhobe, for the intervenors.

2. In this Petition, the challenge is to the order, rejecting Petitioners' nomination for election to Board of Directors of the Goa State Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Union, for short).

3. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the Petitioner no.1 is the Chairman and Member of Petitioner no.2-St. Andre Milk Producers Co-operative Society Limited. The Petitioner no.1 filed his nomination with the Respondent no.2 (Returning Officer) with all the required documents including the resolution of the Petitioner no.2, authorizing him to represent with a declaration that no other member is representing the Society of the Board.

4. The Returning Officer in the course of scrutiny of the nominations in terms of Rule 69(5) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules 2003, sought from the Petitioner no.1 his say as regards his eligibility in terms of Bye-law no. 20.1.6, to contest the elections, inasmuch as the Returning officer was of the view that the Petitioner was not satisfying Rule of said Bye-law, which reads as under :

"20.1.6 - has supplied milk to the Union for more than 270 days in both the shifts in the preceding year except for the Society having bulk milk cooler facility.

5. The Bye-law 20 underlines the qualification for representative of ordinary member for contesting elections of the Board.

6. Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, representative member of the Society, shall be eligible for contesting elections only, if the Society he represents, had supplied milk to Union during preceding year for more than 270 days. Mr. Lawande submitted "preceding year, herein was 2021-22 and not a year anterior thereto." Submission is that, in the preceding year i.e. 2021-22, Society had supplied 1,02,924 litres milk to Union in 280 days. To support the submissions, Mr. Lawande relied on milk supply data made available by Goa State Milk Cooperative Producers Union Limited which is at page no. 58 of the paper-book. Mr. Lawande submitted that the Returning Officer while rejecting the nomination had taken into account data of milk supplied in the year preceding the previous year i.e. 2020-21, which, according to Mr. Lawande, was patently incorrect. To put it differently, it is Petitioners' case that in terms of Bye-law no. 20.1.6, Returning Officer could not have taken into account facts and figures relating to supply made during 2020-21. It is therefore argued, that mistake committed by Returning Officer, being apparent on record and since it does not involve disputed facts, reconsideration of a decision by the Returning Officer would not interrupt or obstruct or delay the progress of election process. Mr. Lawande, would therefore, submit that although the election process has begun, the Court in consideration of peculiar facts of the case, may interfere with the election process, by directing the Returning Officer to reconsider the decision within time bound period, in view of the data of milk supply now being made available by the Union. Mr. Lawande, nextly submitted that, reconsideration of the decision by the Returning Officer, would neither affect the election process nor it would cause prejudice to candidates, who are contesting the elections in question.

7. Mr. Lawande would rely on the judgment in the case of Ghanshyam Tiwari & anr. vs. State of MP, 2010(3) M.P.L.J. to contend that in the compelling circumstances, interference in the election process is justifiable. Mr. Lawande would also rely on Rule 62 of the said Rules to submit that the election program declared under Rule 61 can be modified in the public interest or in any unavoidable circumstances.

8. Mr. Salkar, learned Counsel appearing for the State would concede, to state that Returning Officer shall reconsider a decision in view of