( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3818 OF 2010 Chandrakant s/o Vitthal Chamle, R/o Ganjurwadi, Tq. Chakur, District Latur. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary in the Department of Cooperation, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chakur, District Latur. 3. The Returning Officer, Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Ganjur, Tq. Chakur, District Latur. 4. Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Ganjur, Tq. Chakur, District Latur, through its Secretary. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.J. Choudhari, advocate holding for Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. T.M. Venjane, advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th April, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard ( 2 ) finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order rendered by the Returning Officer and the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chakur. The petitioner is admittedly a borrower member of the respondent No. 4, which is a notified Society. The elections of the respondent No. 4 Society were declared for period of five (5) years. The programme was published in a local newspaper on 27th March, 2010. The petitioner filed his nomination form being from the constituency of Other Backward members. His nomination form has been rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the proposer and seconder, who proposed and seconded name of the petitioner, are non-borrowers. He challenged the decision of the Returning Officer, by filing an appeal No. 8/2010. That appeal has been dismissed vide the impugned order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The short question involved in this petition is ( 3 ) whether rejection of the nomination form of the petitioner for the reasons ascribed by the Returning Officer and the appellate authority is legal and proper. A conjoint reading of Rules 56M and 56N of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 would make it amply clear that the nomination of any member of the Cooperative Society could be considered even if his name is not included in the list of voters. The counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 would point out that under Rule 56M (3), it is necessary that the proposer and the seconder for nominating a candidate shall be from the same constituency. Perusal of the nomination form (Exh-B) shows that the petitioner categorically declared that his candidature was from constituency of Other Backward Members. As per the election programme (Exh-A), one seat was available from the constituency of Other Backward Members of the Society. The petitioner had not filled up the nomination form from the general category of the borrowers’ constituency. Obviously, it was not necessary for him to get the proposer and the seconder from the constituency of borrowers. Rule 56M (3) reads as follows : ( 4 ) “56M. Nomination of candidates (1) ***** (2) ***** (3) Any person whose name is entered in the list of voters may be a proposer or seconder for nominating a candidate for election ; Provided that, in the case of election from constituency of societies, the proposer and the seconder shall be from the same constituency.” 5. Perusal of the expressions used in the Proviso would make it amply clear that the term “constituency” is referred in relation to various constituencies from which the candidature is declared under the nomination form. The necessary corollary of the Proviso is that the proposer and the seconder could be from the category/constituency from which the candidate seeks his nomination form to be considered. In the present case, the petitioner was a candidate from the constituency of Other Backward Members and, therefore, it was absolutely unnecessary for him to seek the proposer and seconder from any other constituency. Mr. Choudhari states that ( 5 ) the proposer and the seconder, who have signed the nomination form are members of Other Backward Members constituency being the members of the Society. Under the circumstances, it is explicit that the rejection of the nomination form was on erroneous assumption that the petitioner was a candidate from the borrowers’ constituency though he was not a candidate from that constituency. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The Returning Officer shall accept the nomination form of the petitioner and shall take further course of action so as to facilitate him to participate in the election programme. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 7. The parties may act on copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp3818-2010 ( 6 )