Disqualification of elected representatives must be based on strong evidence and cannot rely on mere probabilities; procedural fairness is essential in appeals against such decisions.

JUDGMENT :

S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

2. The petitioner impugns order dated 06.06.2025 passed by respondent no.1-Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, thereby rejecting stay application filed by petitioner against order of disqualification dated 23.05.2025 passed by respondent no.-2-District Registrar Co-operative Societies, Ahilyanagar.

3. The petitioner has been elected as Chairman of respondent no.3-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Shrigonda (for short “APMC, Shrigonda”) in the year 2023. The proceeding under Rule 10(3) of ELECTION RULES , 2017 was initiated seeking disqualification of petitioner before respondent no.2, firstly on the ground that petitioner has withdrawn cash amount of Rs.2,66,730/- for his personal use on 10.02.2024 from Sub Market of Kashti by pressurizing employees, secondly, petitioner has illegally obtained record of Market Committee from Secretary Mr. Dilip Debare, contrary to Rule 106 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and Rules of 1967 (for short “APMC Act 1963 and APMC Rules, 1967”) and thirdly, petitioner called meeting of APMC, Shrigonda under his own signature by keeping Secretary in dark. It is accordingly alleged that petitioner has frequently violated bye-laws as such incurred disqualification in term of Rule 10(1)(i) of ELECTION RULES , 2017.

4. The Assistant Registrar conducted enquiry into allegations and submitted his report dated 02.04.2025 to respondent no.2, who issued notice dated 02.05.2025 and called upon petitioner to appear before him to response allegations made by respondent no.4 in his complaint. The petitioner caused appearance and denied allegations made in complaint contending that he has never withdrawn amount of Rs.2,66,730/- as alleged. Assistant Registrar in his report dated 02.04.2025 accepted petitioners defence. Looking to misconduct, charge of Secretary Mr. Dilip Debare was withdrawn as per committee’s Resolution dated 25.01.2001. Since Secretary had failed to conduct meeting of APMC, Shrigonda, petitioner and other Directors had called meeting in absence of Secretary so as to to comply mandate of Bye-Laws No.33(1). As such, petitioner has not violated any provisions of Law, Rules or Bye-Laws. It is further pointed out that in compliance with provisions of Rule 107(1) of APMC Rules, 1967, cash amount is deposited by petitioner between 07.02.2025 to 11.02.2025 in bank account maintained with DCC Bank, which is not been mentioned by Enquiry Officer in his report.

5. The respondent no.2 after considering rival contentions passed disqualification order dated 23.05.2025 against petitioner observing that petitioner has kept in hand cash of APMC, Shrigonda contrary to Section 36(2) of APMC Act, 1963 read with Rule 107 of APMC Rules, 1967. Similarly, petitioner has violated Rule 106 by illegally taking possession of record from Secretary and appointment of in-charge Secretary was contrary to Section 2(r) of APMC Act, 1963 r/w. Rules 92 and 108 of APMC Rules, 1967.

6. The petitioner assailed aforesaid order of disqualification in Appeal before respondent no.1 as per Rule 10(5) of ELECTION RULES , 2017, so also filed application seeking stay to disqualification order dated 23.05.2025. However, respondent no.1 rejected petitioner’s stay application vide impugned order dated 06.06.2025.

7. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner vehemently submits that petitioner is democratically elected Director of APMC, Shrigonda with statutory tenure of 5 years to hold post. H