DATTATRAY GENABA LOLE Vs. DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are members of the Petitioner No. 3 Society. Petitioner No. 3, Sangvi Sandas Vividh Karyakari, is itself a cooperative society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ( "the Act "). Petitioner No. 3 is a member of Pune District Central Coop. Bank, also a cooperative society under the Act and more specifically a federal society. Respondent No. 1 is the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune Division @ District Coop. Election Officer, Pune. Respondent No. 2 is the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune. Respondent No. 3 is the CEO of the Pune District Central Cooperative Bank.

(2.) As a member, Petitioner No. 3 in the ordinary course would have a right to vote in the elections of office bearers of Respondent No. 3. Petitioner No. 3 would be entitled to exercise its vote through representatives duly nominated by it.

(3.) The present Petition challenges an Order of Respondent No. 1 dated 29/9/2021 ( "the Impugned Order ") by which Objection Application No. 54/2021 ( "Objection Application ") was rejected. The Objection Application was filed by Petitioner No. 1. The Objection Application took exception to the exclusion of the name of Petitioner No. 3 from the Preliminary Voters List prepared in relation to the elections to be held of Respondent No. 3 Society, of which Petitioner No. 3 is a member. The Objection Application was rejected by Respondent No. 1 inter alia because on the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of voters as part of the election process of Respondent No. 3, i.e., 4th May 2020, Petitioner No. 3 was in arrears of dues payable to Respondent No. 3 and that the dues were repaid only 16 months thereafter. Another relevant date taken into consideration whilst rejecting the Objection Application was 6th January 2020, which was when Petitioner No. 3 passed a resolution appointing its Director to represent it in the voting at the proposed elections of Respondent No. 3. The Impugned Order also holds that on that date too Petitioner No. 3 was a defaulter. Petitioner No. 3 cleared these dues 16 months later by 13th September 2021. Respondent No. 1 was of the view that Petitioner No. 3 's status as 'defaulter ' on the cut-off date disentitled it to vote or feature in the Preliminary Voter List. Thus, on this ground the Objection Application was rejected by the Impugned Order.