1 W.P.No.4276/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4276 OF 2011. Babasaheb S/o Apparao Akat, Age 45 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Satona (Kh.), Tq. Partur, Dist.Jalna. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. through Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Sub-Divisional Officer and Election Officer of The Jalna District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. 3. The Jalna District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jalna, Tq. and District Jalna, through it's Manager. 4. Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd., Satona, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna through it's Secretary. 5. Dnyanoba S/o Sundarrao Barkule, Age 48 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Khanvi, Tq. Partur, Dist.Jalna. 2 W.P.No.4276/11 6. Kishanrao S/o Ramrao Magar, Age 40 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Kav-Jawala, Tq.Partur, Dist.Jalna. ... Respondents. ... Mr.D.J.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.H.Dighe, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, advocate for the Respondent No.3. Mr.Khadap Rahul D. advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr.Bhise B.B. advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.06.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present petitioner was nominated as delegatee of the Respondent No.4 Society for the election of Respondent No.3 Managing Committee. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination 3 W.P.No.4276/11 paper of the petitioner on the ground that he is an Office bearer of a defaulting Respondent NO.4 society. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not the officer of the Society within the meaning of Section 2(20) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, as much prior to filling in the nomination paper, he has already resigned as Director on 1.4.2011 and the said resignation was accepted on 9.4.2011 by the Committee. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of nomination paper preferred an appeal. The appeal also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 5. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not Director of Respondent No.4. He was a delegatee of Respondent No.4 and had filled in the nomination paper as delegatee of Respondent No.4. The name of the petitioner appears in the voters list also as delegatee of Respondent No4. As the 4 W.P.No.4276/11 petitioner had resigned on 1.4.2011 and the said resignation was also accepted on 9.4.2011, the nomination paper filed on 30.5.2011 was not hit by provisions of Section 73E-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. According to the learned counsel, the authorities have committed an error in rejecting the nomination paper. 6. Mr.Dighe, learned Asstt.Govt.Pleader and Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submit that the resignation is doubtful. The petitioner can not give a go-by to the provisions of Section 73E-A. The petitioner is an Officer interalia an office bearer. As such is not qualified for the election. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the relevant provisions. The petitioner was nominated as a delegatee of Respondent No.4 vide Resolution dated 7.1.2009. Thereafter, on 1.4.2011, the petitioner submitted his resignation as a Director/Member of the Managing Committee of Respondent No.4. The said resignation was 5 W.P.No.4276/11 accepted by the Managing Committee vide its Resolution dated 9.4.2011. The petitioner filed his nomination paper on 30.5.2011. The eligibility of the petitioner would be considered as on the date of filing of the nomination paper. The moot question would be whether as on the date of filing of the nomination paper, the petitioner was an office bearer of the Respondent No.4 Society. The relevant provisions read as under : "Section 2(20) "Officer" means a person elected or appointed by a society to any office of such society according to its by-laws: and includes a chairman, vice-chairman, president, vice president, managing director, manager, secretary, treasurer, member of the committee and any other person elected or appointed under this Act, the rules or the by-laws, to give directions in regard to the business of such society. Section 73E-A. Disqualification for 6 W.P.No.4276/11 being dire4ctor of District Central Cooperative Bank or State Cooperative Bank Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder in relation to the disqualification of being a member of a committee, no person shall be eligible for being appointed, nominated, co-opted or, for being a director of a District Central Cooperative Bank or of the State Cooperative Bank, if he - (i) is a person who represents a society other than a primary agricultural credit cooperative society on the board of a District Central Cooperative Bank or State Cooperative Bank, if the society to whom he represents has committed a default towards the payments of such Bank for a period exceeding ninety days; (ii) is a person who is defaulter 7 W.P.No.4276/11 of a primary agricultural credit cooperative society or is an office bearer of a defaulting primary agricultural cooperative credit society. (iii) is a person, who represents a society whose Managing Committee is superceded;" 8. Perusal of Section 73E-A(ii), it is manifest that a defaulter of a primary agricultural credit Cooperative Society or an office bearer of a defaulting primary agricultural cooperative credit society is ineligible and disqualified for being Director of District Central Cooperative Bank or the State Cooperative Bank. The petitioner was not a Director or an office bearer of the Respondent No.4 Society on the date of filing nomination paper. Section 2(20) relied by the learned counsel for Respondents would not be applicable. The same would be applicable if the petitioner would have been a member of the Managing Committee. This Court can not legislate by 8 W.P.No.4276/11 reading member of a Society into Section 2(20) of the said Act. The phraseology of Section 2(20) is unambiguous. The same will have to be read as it is. The literal construction of the said provision does not permit any other interpretation. 9. In light of the above, it will have to be held that the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner was erroneous. The impugned orders as such are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C). The Returning Officer shall include the name of the petitioner in the list of valid contesting candidates. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp427611 9 W.P.No.4276/11