(1)

wp4512.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

909 WRIT PETITION NO. 4512 OF 2021

Devirath Shivram Sanap,

...PETITIONER

Age-33 years, Occu-Agri,

R/o. Aadarsha Nagar Wadwani,

Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed

VERSUS

1.

The Divisional Joint Registrar,

...RESPONDENTS

Co-operative Societies, Latur

2.

The Returning Officer,

Beed District Central Co-op.

Bank Ltd, Beed

3.

The Managing Director

Beed District Central

Co-op. Bank Ltd, Beed

Mr. Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. R. D. Sanap, Advocate for respondent No.1/State

Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for respondent No.2

Mr. D. J. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.3

CORAM :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

11-03-2021

P. C.

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Having regard to

the nature of the controversy raised in the petition, with the

1 of 7

(2)

wp4512.21

consent of the counsels for the parties, heard finally at the stage of

admission.

2.

Heard Shri Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi, learned counsel

for the petitioner, Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for the respondent

No. 1/State, Shri V. H. Dighe, learned counsel for respondent No. 2

and Shri D. J. Choudhari, Advocate for the respondent No.3

3.

The challenge in this petition is to the rejection of

nomination from de-notified tribes (Vimukt Jati), Nomadic Tribes

constituency for election to the Committee of Beed District Central

Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Beed- respondent No. 3. The nomination of

the petitioner came to be rejected by respondent No. 2-the

Returning Officer on the ground that the petitioner did not submit

document to substantiate his claim of eligibility under Section 73B

(3) of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 (the ‘Act’).

The appellate authority did not find any infirmity in the order

passed by the Returning Officer and, thus, dismissed the appeal.

Hence the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

2 of 7

(3)

wp4512.21

4.

A two-pronged submission was canvassed on behalf of

the petitioner. One, the authorities were not justified in rejecting

the nomination on the count that the petitioner did not fulfill the

eligibility criterion under Section 73B (3) of the Act for the non

production of copy of the notification issued by the Registrar

constituting the Committee of Society which the petitioner

represents. Two under Section 73B (3) of the Act, there is no

requirement that a reserved category candidate should be a

member of the Committee of the Society.

5.

Evidently, the petitioner had not produced the

notification constituting the Committee of the Society which he

claims to represent. Indisputably, the constitution of the

Committee of the society is evidenced by a notification issued by

the Assistant Registrar. In this backdrop, the insistence of the

authorities to place on record a copy of the notification constituting

the Committee cannot be said to be unreasonable. To rule out the

possibility of challenge to the status of a candidate on the count

that the candidate is not a member of the Committee, the

reluctance of the authorities to place reliance on the documents

3 of 7

(4)

wp4512.21

certified by the Office Bearers of the Society cannot be faulted at.

6.

Section 73B of the Act, 1960 reads as under :

“73B. [Reservation of certain seats on committees of

societies and election thereto.] -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

Act or in the rules made thereunder or any bye-

laws of any society, on the committee of such

society or class of societies as the State

Government may, by general or special order,

direct, [three seats] shall be reserved.-

(a) one for the members belonging to the

Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes; [***]

[(a-i) one for the members belonging to the

Other Backward Classes [and];

(a-ii) one for the members belonging to the De-

notified Tribes