Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Avinash G. Gharote, J.
Zamsingh - Appellant
Versus
District Co-Operative Election Officer - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1146 of 2023
Decided On : 09-03-2023
ELECTION - Voter Eligibility and Membership Rights - Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 - The court analyzed the powers of the Election Officer under Rule 8 and Rule 11 of the Rules of 2014, emphasizing that the Election Officer's authority is limited to correcting omissions or errors in the provisional voters list. The court interpreted that the Election Officer could not conduct a detailed inquiry into a member's eligibility or status as a defaulter, especially when the member had resigned from a society. The court concluded that the Election Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by deleting the petitioner's name based on allegations of default, which were not substantiated within the limited scope of inquiry permitted by the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order that removed his name from the provisional voters list of a cooperative society, based on claims that he was a defaulter due to loans taken from another society. The petitioner contended that he had repaid the loans and was not a defaulter, and that the Election Officer had overstepped his authority in making this determination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not a defaulter of the society in question and that the Election Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by conducting a detailed inquiry into the petitioner's financial status, which was not permitted under the relevant rules. The court emphasized that the Election Officer's role was limited to correcting errors in the provisional voters list, not to adjudicate on membership disputes or allegations of default.
Issues: Whether the Election Officer had the authority to remove the petitioner's name from the provisional voters list based on claims of default, and whether the petitioner was indeed a defaulter under the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Election Officer's powers were strictly limited to addressing omissions or errors in the provisional voters list as per the Rules of 2014. The inquiry into the petitioner's status as a defaulter was beyond the scope of the Election Officer's authority, especially since the petitioner had resigned from the other society and was not a defaulter of the society in question.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order, reinstated the petitioner's name in the provisional voters list, and allowed the petition.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsels for the rival parties.
3. The petition challenges the order dtd. 13/2/2023 passed by the respondent No.1 (page 25), whereby the objection raised by the respondent No.2, to the inclusion of the name of the petitioner, in the provisional voters list of the respondent No. 3/Society, has been accepted and the name of the petitioner has been directed to be deleted from the provisional voters list itself.
4. It is contended by Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioner, that such an exercise is not permissible for the respondent No.1, considering the limited powers conferred upon him by the provisions of Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules 2014 (for short the "Rules of 2014") and the only correction which could be made would be in respect to the name or address or other particulars in the list submitted by the Society to the Election Officer, as may be brought to the notice of the respondent No. 1. It is contended, that any claim regarding the petitioner being a defaulter or otherwise, on the basis of fraud cannot form the subject matter of the decision of the respondent No. 1 under Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2014. He therefor submits, that the impugned order, is indicative of the respondent No. 1 having transgressed the limits imposed upon his powers and authority by Rule 8 read with Rule 11 of the Rules of 2014, and therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr. Khapre, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2, at the outset raises a plea regarding the maintainability of the petition and submits, that it is not maintainable on account of what has been held in Dattatray Genaba Lole and Others Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4579. On merits, he supports the impugned order and contends, that in light of Sec. 27 (10) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the "Act of 1960") read with Sec. 73(A) of the Act of 1960, such an exercise by the respondent No.1 was permissible. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4, supports the contention of Mr. Khapre, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2, as is the case with Ms. Khan, learned AGP for the respondent No.1/State.
6. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner, is a member of the respondent No.3/Society. It is also not in dispute, that the petitioner had taken loan from the respondent No.3/Society of Rs.52, 000.00 on 26/4/2017, which has been repaid by him on 21/8/2019, and therefore, he is not a defaulter member of the respondent No.3/Society.
7. The petitioner also happened to be the member of the respondent No.4/Society from whom he is claimed to have been take a loan of Rs.23, 000.00.
8. When the preliminary voters list was published for the respondent No.3/Society, the respondent No. 2 took an objection to the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the preliminary voters list contending that the petitioner was also a member of the respondent No.4/Society and had availed loans from both the Societies, and therefore, he should be disqualified. The respondent No.1 thereupon conducted a detailed enquiry by calling for the replies of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as of the petitioner and so also the various documents and registers therefrom and by the impugned order has opined that since the petitioner, had also taken a loan from the respondent No.4/Society, which according to him was repaid on 8/2/2023, the petitioner was a defaulter member, and therefore, his name ought to be deleted from the provisional voters list of the respondent No.3/Society.
9. What is material to note is that insofar as the respondent No. 3/Society is concerned, the petitioner is not a defaulter member. The preliminary voters list is being prepared for the respondent No.3/Society.
10. In support of this contention, t
The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections to the provisional voters list for co-operative society elections must be within the jurisdiction of the Election Officer and must ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prima facie evidence of the membership register and the limitations on the jurisdiction of deciding the claims and objections to the voters lis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 73CA(1)(f)(ii) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which prescribes the disqualification of a person who....
The prescribed procedure under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014, including provisions for challenging voter identity and preventing impersonation, must be fol....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the absence from the I and J register alone cannot justify the exclusion of voters from the final voters list. The court emphasized the sig....
A federal society has no authority to decide on the legality of the membership of a member nominated/appointed by its member society so as to not include him in the provisional voters list.
Disputes regarding electoral rolls must be addressed through statutory remedies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, not via writ petitions.
The court ruled that the provisional voters' list must be based on the correct date as per statutory rules, emphasizing compliance with election regulations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
