BABASAHEB GOKUL SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by the Returning Officer to include Respondent Nos. 5 to 20 in the final voters list and for direction to see that they are not allowed to vote in the elections to Respondent No.4 Cooperative Credit Society of Shenwadgaon, Tahsil Rahuri. Proceeding is filed also to challenge the decision given in Revision No. 7 of 2016 which was filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik by the present petitioners. The authority has held that the present petitioners stand disqualified and they cannot continue as members of respondent cooperative society. Both sides are heard. Hereinafter the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) Respondent No. 3 of the present proceeding had filed application under Sec. 11 read with Sec. 25A of the Act before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies for deleting the names of present petitioners from the list of members of the society. The application was filed on two grounds viz. (i) the present petitioners are not residing in the area for which the society is created and (ii) they are not having 10R land within the limits of the ares for which society is created. On the basis of the record like certificate issued by the revenue authority that petitioners are not having land, the Assistant Registrar made order to delete the names of the present petitioners from the membership register. In the revision, the Divisional Joint Registrar has considered other circumstance that there is no record to show that present petitioners are residents of village Shenwadgaon, the area for which the society is created, in additional to the aforesaid ground.

(3.) The learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that the authority has committed error in not considering the bylaws of the society. He submitted that when the petitioners were made members in the past, the authority ought to have presumed that they were eligible to continue as members of the society. He submitted that the amended provisions like necessity to hold 10R portion of agricultural land in the area of operation of the society cannot be made applicable against the present petitioners. He submitted that in view of the bylaw no. 6(3) the condition of holding 10R portion of agricultural land is not applicable to the persons mentioned in bylaw 4(14) and the petitioners could not have been deleted as they fall in that category. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent who had filed application before the Assistant Registrar submitted that the petitioners could not produce any record to show that they are residents of the area for which the society is created and further they are not disputing that they are not having 10R portion of land in the area of operation of the society. He submitted that the petitioners were made members as agriculturist and they do not fall in the category mentioned in bylaw no. 4(14). He submitted that there is record to show that the present petitioners are residents of other village, even other tahasils and they themselves had mentioned in the proceedings filed by them their addresses from other places. He took this Court through the record like voters list prepared for general elections for difference places like Pachegaon, Kerwadi, Kopergaon, etc. He showed this Court the names of these petitioners included in the voters list of those places. This Court went through the revenue record Pachegaon, Punadgaon, Ghari, Chandkasari, etc. also. The learned Counsel showed to this Court the record of resolution made by respondent cooperative society against the petitioner as they were not satisfying the eligibility conditions. He submitted that though such resolution was there, by joining hands with the petitioner, their names were continued in the voters list. He submitted that when the Divisional Joint Registrar, Nashik had given stay only for particular period, till 02nd Feb., 2016, by misusing this order, names of the petitioners were continued in the voters list and even this Court was mislead to see that these petitioners are allowed to vote in the election.