1 921-WP-3894-2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.3894 OF 2022

Balasaheb Karbhari Kachre

Age: 52 years, Occu: Agri.,

R/o: Padali, Tq. Pathardi

District: Ahmednagar

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,

Through Election Officer,

District Deputy Registrar,

Co. op. Sawanstha, Ahmednagar

2. The Returning Officer,

V. K. S. S. Sawanstha Ltd. Padali,

Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar

3. The V. K. S. S. Sawanstha Ltd. Padali

Through Secretary, Tq. Pathardi,

District Ahmednagar

4. Dilip Yadav Kachre

Age: 60 years, Occu: Agri.,

R/o: Padali, Tq. Pathardi,

District Ahmednagar

… Respondents

…

Mr. R. P. Bhumkar, Advocate for the Petitioner

Mr. P. N. Kutti, AGP for the Respondent No.1/State

Mr. S. K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.2

Mr. Tushar Shinde h/f Mr. C. K. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.3

Mr. K. D. Bade, Advocate for Respondent No.4

…

2 921-WP-3894-2022.odt

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE : 6^th April, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the

consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2.

This petition takes exception to the order dated 17/03/2022,

passed by respondent no.2/Returning Officer, thereby reviewing his

own order and accepting the nomination of respondent no.4

3.

The programme for finalization of the voters list of respondent

no.3/Society was published by respondent no.2. Nomination forms

were to be filed between 10/03/2022 to 16/03/2022. On

17/03/2022, the scrutiny of nomination forms was to be held.

4.

Petitioner objected to the nomination of respondent no.4 on the

ground that he is a defaulter of Adinath Nagari Sahakari

Pathasawnstha Ltd. and therefore, he is not eligible to contest the

election. Alongwith the objection, the petitioner submitted a

certificate of outstanding dues of respondent no.4 issued by the said

Adinath Pathasawnstha. The respondent no.2 accepted the objection

3 921-WP-3894-2022.odt

and rejected the nomination form of respondent no.4 on 17/03/2022

holding that respondent no.4 is the defaulter of the said Adinath

Pathasawnstha. Therefore, as per Section 73CA of the Maharashtra

Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act, 1960”), he is not

eligible to contest the election. In the order, it is mentioned that the

respondent no.4 is entitled to challenge the said order by filing an

appeal under Section 152-A of the Act, 1960.

5.

The petitioner was surprised to see the name of respondent

no.4 in the list of validly nominated candidates. The petitioner sought

information from respondent no.2 as to how the nomination form of

respondent no.4 was accepted. The respondent no.2 in writing

informed to the petitioner that nomination form of respondent no.4

was rejected, however, the proposer of respondent no.4 sought time

upto 3:00 pm for compliance of the deficiencies. He then submitted

certificate that respondent no.4 has cleared the dues of the said

Adinath Pathasawnstha. The said Pathasawnstha confirmed that its

dues are cleared. Therefore, in view of principles of natures justice,

the nomination form of respondent no.4 is accepted. This action of

respondent no.2 is challenged by the petitioner.

4 921-WP-3894-2022.odt

6.

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for respondent no.1, learned Advocate for

respondent no.2, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 and learned

Advocate for respondent no.4.

7.

It is not in dispute that on the date of filing of nomination form,

respondent no.1 was a defaulter of Adinath Pathasawnstha and on

that ground, his nomination form was rejected by respondent no.2

vide order dated 17/03/2022. Howeve