Subhash Baburao Chavan v. State Co Operative Election Authority Pune And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:22005 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5386 OF 2026 SUBHASH BABURAO CHAVAN

VERSUS

STATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY PUNE AND OTHERS ...

Mr. P. B. Shirsath, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. P. K. Nikam and Mr. M. D. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

Mr. G. P. Darandale, Advocate for Respondent No.5. ...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

(VACATION COURT) DATE : 26th MAY, 2026.

ORDER:- 1.

The petitioner impugns order dated 18.05.2026 passed by District Election Officer and Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, thereby rejecting petitioner's objection to name of respondent no.3 being delegate of respondent no.4/society.

2.

On 11.03.2026, for ensuing election, respondent no.2 issued Notification calling for names of delegates from member societies of respondent no.5/Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank Limited (for short 'ADCC Bank'). On 27.04.2026, provisional voters list is published to which objections were invited upto 06.05.2026. The petitioner raised objection to nomination of respondent no.3 being delegate of respondent

(2) no.4/society on the ground that he is Director of dafualter society. Hence, cannot be nominated as delegate, instead name of any other member ought to have been proposed. The respondent no.2 rejected said objection. Hence, this petition. 3.

Mr. Shirsath, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that as per communication issued by Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Khultabad, petitioner was member of Managing Committee of Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Kanakshil for period from 2022-2027. The said society is defaulter of ADCC Bank. The respondent no.3 being Director of defaulter society, cannot be nominated as delegate. 4.

Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 points out that respondent no.3 had resigned from post of Director. He continued to be simple member. As such, there was no impediment for nominating him as delegate of respondent no.4/society.

5.

Perusal of impugned order depicts that on 10.09.2025 respondent no.3 resigned from post of Director of Kanakshil Multipurpose Society. The said resignation has been accepted during meeting dated 17.09.2025. The respondent no.2 has accordingly recorded findings that respondent no.3 was not

(3) Director of defaulting society as on date of his nomination as delegate. It is further observed that respondent no.3 cannot be treated as disqualified being office bearer of defaulting society. Apparently, there is no impediment in nominating any member of defaulting primary agriculture society as delegate. The finding recorded by respondent no.2 is in conformity with record tendered into service. There is nothing to indicate that respondent no.3 was holding post of Director of defaulting society as on date of Resolution, appointing him as delegate of respondent no.4/society. 6.

Hence, no case is made out to cause interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India in impugned order. In result, Writ Petition sans merit. Hence, stands dismissed. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/May-2026