The judgment emphasized the importance of following the statutory process for membership deletion under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and highlighted the need for a properly instituted Election Petition to address disputed questions of fact.

JUDGMENT

Arun R. Pedneker, J. - Heard Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. K. N. Lokhande, learned AGP for the Respondent / State, Mr. S. K. Kadam, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr. Abhishek D. Chapule, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 and Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 06.02.2023, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies / Election Officer, Kallam / Respondent No.3, thereby, 58 names of the members of the Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Satra, Taluka Kalamb, District - Osmanabad (for short 'the said Society') were deleted from the provisional voters list. The petitioner is holding a General Power of Attorney dated 08.02.2023, of the 57 members in favour of the petitioner to file the present writ petition. The petitioner himself is one of the aggrieved person in the list of deleted 58 members.

3. The facts in brief can be summarized as under:-

A] The term of the managing committee of the said Society had came to an end and, therefore, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 published a programme for finalising of voters list and to hold the elections to the managing committee of the said society.

B] As per the programme the Respondent No.4 - Society, through the Secretary, forwarded the provisional voters list to Respondent No.3, on 24.01.2023, for preparation of final voters list of 588 members. In the said provisional list, the cut-off date of eligible members is fixed as of 01.01.2023. The name of the petitioner and other 57 members were included in the provisional voters list.

C] Respondent No.5 submitted objection to the provisional voters list and, thereby, prayed for deletion of names of 58 members from the provisional voters list for the reason that Respondent No. 4 / Society has passed a Resolution on 30.09.2018 to accept 97th amendment to the Constitution and to delete the members who do not hold 10 Are of land from the membership.

D] After receipt of the objection, Respondent No.3 / Election Officer called for say and record from Respondent No.4. In pursuance of the notice issued by Respondent No.3, Respondent No.4 submitted his explanation stating therein that the names of the 58 members cannot be deleted since their membership has not been cancelled as per the Resolution adopted by the Society on 30.09.2018. There was no separate notice issued to the 58 affected members. The Respondent No.3, on consideration of the objections, published final voters list, which included the 58 members. However, within a couple of hours a revised final voters list was published, wherein names of the 58 members were deleted.

4. Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the petitioners (58 deleted voters) are the members of the said Society for last more than 20 years and they have been voting for the said society and deletion of their names from the membership ought not to have been done by Respondent No.3 without notice to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deletion of the membership is done by an elaborate process as followed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 under Section 11 of the said Act and in absence of a formal order of the deletion of members by the authorities constituted under the Act, the petitioners name ought not to have been deleted from the final voters list.

6. It is further the contention of the petitioner that the Society resolution seeks deletion of 146 members, however the deletion has happened of only 58 voters. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election programme is yet to be declared and, as such, the order passed by the Respondent No.3 be quashed and set aside and that the petitioners be directed to be included in the final voters list.

7. Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of th