Election Officer's authority is limited to name/address corrections; cannot assess fraud or default claims, highlighting the summary nature of electoral inquiries.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

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 dated 13.02.2023 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 Co- operative 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 Section 27 (10) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the “Act of 1960”) read with Section 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/- on 26.04.2017, which has been repaid by him on 21.08.2019, 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/-.

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 08.02.2023, the petitioner was a defaulter memb