JAGANRAO NARHARRAO HARNE Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who were candidates in the elections of a specified Cooperative Society viz. Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank have challenged the order of Returning Officer, dated 12.08.2005 by which the said Returning Officer has rejected their objection to the nomination paper filed by Respondent no.2. The said Returning Officer is respondent no. 1 before this Court. The objection raised was that deceased father of Respondent no. 2 had declared himself to be personally responsible for repayment of loan received from Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank by Ambadevi Cooperative Sugar Factory of which he was a Chairman. The provisions of Section 73FF of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act were invoked in support. The Returning Officer found that there was no material before him to conclude that respondent no. 2 could be said to be a defaulter within the meaning of said provisions. The writ petition thereafter has been admitted for final hearing.

(2.) The petitioners admittedly contested the said election which was then scheduled on 10.9.2005. Respondent no. 2 submitted his nomination for the said election in constituency meant for Credit Cooperative Societies. Both petitioners raised objection to that nomination pointing out that respondent no. 2 is the son of one Gunwant Sabale, who borrowed loan for Sugar factory from Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank and for its repayment gave his personal and collective guarantee to the said Bank. As the loan was not repaid, the Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank filed dispute under Section 91 vide Case No. 465/2002 before Cooperative Court, Amravati, for recovery of loan amount of Rs. 7,77,57,658/-. During pendency of that dispute, Gunwant Sabale expired on 28.5.2003 and then Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank moved applications before Cooperative Court for brining on record his legal heirs including the present respondent no.2. As responsibility of Gunwant Sabale was personal, it devolved upon his legal heirs and respondent no. 2, being his son, was also liable to clear that loan amount and as that was not cleared, he was defaulter and therefore, disqualified to contest the election. The said objection was replied to by respondent no. 2 pointing out that the names of legal heirs were not brought on record within the stipulated time and hence dispute No. 465/2002 was not then pending. In support of his stand that he was not defaulter, he produced certificate dated 31.3.2005 of Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank. The respondent no. 1 - Returning Officer also obtained opinion of District Government Pleader at Amravati who expressed that son of a defaulter cannot himself be disqualified as defaulter. After looking into the respective stands and the opinion, respondent no.1 rejected the objection as raised by the petitioners.

(3.) In this background, I have heard Advocate Shri Gordey, for petitioners, Advocate Agnihotri for Respondent no.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.