Membership in a co-operative society cannot be terminated without following the statutory procedure, and arbitrary exclusion from the voters list violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge raised in this writ petition filed by 47 members of Shri Hanuman Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sanstha (for short, ‘the Society’) a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act of 1960’), is to the provisional voters list published on 14/02/2025 as well as the election programme for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of the Society published on 11/03/2025. The petitioners also pray that a fresh voters list be published by including their names and thereafter conduct the said elections.

3. The facts relevant for considering the challenge as raised in the writ petition are that the elective term of the Managing Committee of the Society came to an end some time in 2022. However, the fresh elections were postponed for one reason or the other. The provisional voters list came to be published on 14/02/2025 containing names of 132 members enrolled upto 31/03/2022. Since the names of about 59 members were excluded from the provisional voters list, the said members raised an objection before the Assistant Registrar on 18/02/2025. The Assistant Registrar on 25/02/2025 heard the objections and held that as the said 59 members were supplying milk to another co- operative society which was against bye-laws of the Society, they had ceased to be members of the Society. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order rejecting their objections approached the Taluka Co-operative Election Officer by invoking the provisions of Rule 11(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (for short, “the Rules of 2014”). The Election Officer considered the objections as raised. He held that as the said 59 members were stated to be supplying milk to another co-operative society, they had ceased to be members of the Society. On this ground , the objection was turned down. Thereafter, the election programme for holding elections to the Managing Committee came to be declared on 12/03/2025. It is in this backdrop that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

4. It is to be noted that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.4029/2025 on 17/03/2025 for challenging the order dated 28/02/2025 passed by the Election Officer under Rule 11(3) of the Rules of 2014. A learned Single Judge heard the writ petition on 28/03/2025 and held in paragraphs 3 to 7 as under:-

“3. It is well-settled that the deletion of a member's name from the rolls of a cooperative Society must be in consonance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, which governs the cessation of membership. Any decision taken in derogation of these statutory provisions is liable to be struck down as arbitrary and ultra vires.

4. The Returning Officer, being a statutory functionary, is bound by the constraints of Rule 11 and cannot assume adjudicatory jurisdiction over disputes concerning membership. Thus, if the petitioners contend that their names were illegally removed from the voters' list without due process, the appropriate remedy is to approach this Court by way of a writ petition challenging the preliminary voters' list rather than invoking the limited powers of the Returning Officer under Rule 11.

5. In light of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that a writ petition against an order passed by the Returning Officer under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, does not merit interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power of judicial review in such matters is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and ensuring adherence to due process, which in the present case, does not appear to have been violated at the stage of the Returning Officer's determination.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

7. How