Adiwasi Vividh Karyakari Saha. Sanstha Ltd., Thr. Member And Auth. Person, Atmaram V. Gadekar v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department Of Co-Operation, Mumbai And ORS.

2026:BHC-NAG:4787 1 56.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2124 OF 2026 Adiwasi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. V.N. Morande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.C. Joshi, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr. C.M. Samarth, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J .

DATED : 23 rd MARCH, 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsels for respondents.

2.

The petitioner's challenge is to an Order dated 22.01.2026 passed by respondent No.2 - District Co-operative Election Officer, rejecting the claim/objection of the petitioner-Society to the substitution of name of its representative under Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014.

3.

Learned counsels for the respective parties submit that the controversy involved in the present petition is identical to the controversy involved in Writ Petition No.1721/2026 Adivasi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Muttapur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (alongwith other connected matters), which have been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 12.03.2026.

2 56.odt 4.

It has to be noted that considering the position of law as laid down in Dattatray Genaba Lole and Others Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others reported in (2021) 2 High Court Cases (Bom) 612 and other judgments referred thereto, it has been held that the writ petitions were not maintainable on account of alternate remedy and also by considering the stage of election, at which indulgence was sought. Same position is applicable to the instant case. In view of above, since the controversy involved in the instant petition is identical and based on same arguments, there is no reason to take a different view. Hence, keeping open all the contentions on merits, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 12.03.2026 in Writ Petition No.1721/2026, the writ petition is dismissed.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J . ) Privel