(1) Both these petitions post identical questions and are borne out of identical facts. In both these petitions, the nomination form of respective petitioners have been rejected by the authorities on identical grounds.

(2) As far as petitioner in Writ Petition No.7758/2026 is concerned, the nomination form is rejected on a ground that he is carrying on business akin to the business of the society; while as far as petitioner in Writ Petition No.7756/2026, he being brother of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7758/2026, his form is rejected as he comes within the expression “family” as explained in the explanation (1) to sub-section (2) of Section 75 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Therefore, both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

(3) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith in both the petitions. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(4) As far as Writ Petition No.7758/2026 is concerned, the facts as stated in the petition are as under :

                    (4.1) The petitioner is the proprietor of “Jagdamba Krishi Kendra”, Patanbori, Tq. Kelapur (Pandharkawada), Dist. Yavatmal, a duly licensed agricultural inputs dealership dealing in seeds, fertilizers, pesticides. The petitioner also claims to be a duly authorised representative of Patanbori Gram Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Patanbori (hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’), which is a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which is a member-society of respondent No.2 – Bank.

                    (4.2) It is further stated in the petition that on 06.09.2026, the respondent No.5 herein i.e. the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati published the Election Program for the elections of Committee/Board of Directors of the respondent No.2 – Bank for the term 2026 to 2031.

                    (4.3) The petitioner being eligible submitted his nomination form to the seat earmarked for Category No.30(A) from Pandharkawada Taluka Voters Constituency as a representative of the Society. However, the respondent No.1 herein raised an objection to the nomination form of the petitioner by filing an objection under Section 73-CA (A1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, contending that the petitioner runs the said proprietary concern as stated supra and is thus, engaged in the business of sale of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. It was further contended that since the respondent No.2 – Bank extends credit facility to the members of the societies for purchase of such goods, the petitioner is disqualified from being elected as a member of the committee of the said Bank.

                    (4.4) The petitioner on 16.09.2026 filed a detailed reply refuting the said objections and stating that he is duly qualified for contesting the elections.

                    (4.5) The respondent No.3 i.e. Returning Officer thereby upheld the objection of the respondent No.1 and passed an order rejecting the nomination of the petitioner. The said order was passed on 16.09.2026. Immediately on the next day i.e. on 17.09.2026, the petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal bearing Appeal No.01/2026 under the provisions of Section 152-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the respondent No.5. The matter was heard by the said respondent No.5 and vide impugned order dated 25.09.2026 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 16.09.2026 passed by the respondent No.3. In other words, the respondent No.5 also held that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 73-CA (A1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Both these orders are impugned in the present petition on various grounds as stated in the petition.

(5) I have heard Shri Akshay Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as also Mr. Firdos Mirza, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

(6) The only short contention which is advanced by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that both the authorities have passed the impugned order on an incorrect reading of the provisions of Section 73-CA of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the relevant portion of the Section 73-CA is reproduced as under :

                    “73CA. [Disqualification of committee and its members.]

                    (A1) In the case of a society, which gives loans to members for purchasing machinery, implements, equipments, commodities or other goods, or which deals in such goods, no member, who or whose member of the family is a dealer in such goods or is a director of a company or a partner in a firm carrying on business in such goods, in the area of operation of the society shall be eligible for being elected or nominated as a member of the committee of such society;

                    Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "family" shall have the same meaning as explained in the Explanation 1, to sub-section (2) of section 75.

                    (1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder in relation to the disqualification of being member of a committee, no person shall be eligible for being appointed, nominated, elected, co-opted or, for being a member of a committee, if he-

                    (i) is a defaulter of any society;

                    Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause, the term "defaulter" includes-

                    (a) in the case of a primary agricultural credit society, a member who defaults the repayment of the crop loan on the due date;

                    (b) in the case of term lending society, a member who default the payment of any instalment of the loan granted to him;

                    (c) in the case of any society,-

                    (i) a member who has taken anamat or advance; or

                    (ii) a member who has purchased any goods or commodities on credit or availed himself of any services from the society for which charges are payable; and fails to repay the full amount of such anamat or advance or pay the price of such goods or commodities or charges for such service, after receipt of notice of demand by him from the concerned society or within thirty days from the date of withdrawal of anamat or advance by him or from the date of delivery of goods to him or availing of services by him, whichever is earlier;

                    (d) in the case of non-agricultural credit societies, a member who defaults the payment of any instalment of the loan granted;

                    (e) in the case of housing societies, a member who defaults the payment of dues to the society within three months from the date of service of notice in writing served by post under certificate of posting demanding the payment of dues;

                    (f) in the case of District Central Co-operative Bank or of the State Co-operative Bank, a member, if he,-

                    (i) is a person who represents a society other than a primary agricultural credit co-operative society on the board of a District Central Co-operative Bank or the State Co-operative 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 a defaulter of a primary agricultural credit co-operative society or is an office bearer of a defaulting primary agricultural co-operative credit society;

                    (iii) is a person who represents a society whose Managing Committee is superseded.]

                    (ii) has, in the opinion of the Registrar, deliberately committed breach of co-operative discipline with reference to linking up of credit with cooperative marketing or co-operative processing; or

                    (ii-a) ***

                    (iii) has been held responsible under section 79 or 88 or has been held responsible for payment of costs of inquiry under section 85; or

                    (iv) has incurred any disqualification under this Act or the rules made thereunder [or by-laws of the society]; or

                    [(v) carries on business of the kind carried on by the society either in the area of operation of the society or in contravention of the provisions of [clause (b) of sub-section (Al)] or]

(7) A careful reading of the said Section 73-CA would reveal that the said section provides for disqualification of committee and its members. Sub-Section (A1) which was brought on the statute book by Maharashtra Act No.16/2023 dated 13.08.2013 which came into effect from 14.02.2013 provides that in case of a Society which gives loans to members for purchasing machinery, implements, equipments, commodities or other goods, or which deals in such goods, no member, who or whose member of the family is a dealer in such goods etc. shall be eligible for being elected or nominated as a Member of the Committee of such Society. The explanation to this sub-section provides that the expression “family” shall have the same meaning as explained in the Explanation 1, to sub-section (2) of Section 75. Further more, sub-section (1) of Section 73-CA opens with a term “Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act ……. No person shall be eligible for being appointed etc for being a member of a committee, if he is a defaulter of any society [Clause (i) of sub-section (i)].

(8) The explanation (a) to (f) to clause (i) of sub-section (i) defines the term ‘defaulter’ for various classes of societies. Clause (f) speaks about District Central Co-operative Bank or the State Co-operative Bank. Explanation (i), (ii) and (iii) speaks about various eventualities in which a person can be termed as a defaulter in the case of District Central Co-operative Bank or the State Co-operative Bank. Thereafter, the explanation of the term ‘defaulter’ ends there and the further clauses i.e. clauses (ii) to (v) and onwards speak about various other contingencies which would incurr disqualification of the concerned person.

(9) Mr. Naik, learned Senior Advocate has taken me through this provision various times. It is his primary submission that Clause (f) which speaks about a member being a defaulter in the case of District Central Co-operative Bank or of the State Co-operative Bank and clauses (i) to (v) have to be read as a standalone provision. In other words, it is his submission that if the elections are held for a District Central Co-operative Bank or of the State Co-operative Bank (as is in the present case) sub-section (A1) of the Section 73-CA will not come into picture at all. It is his submission that it would be only Clause (f) and the clauses following thereto would come in the picture. The submission is based on a premise that the legislature in its own wisdom has made special provision for the elections of the District Central Co-operative Bank or of the State Co-operative Bank. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order which disqualifies the petitioner by taking aid of sub-section (A1) of Section 73-CA is totally fallacious.

(10) The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners in his fairness submits that he is aware of the limited scope of interference in election matters. However, he places reliance on a judgment of this Court Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.2688/2023, Suresh Pannalal Sankhala Vs. Returning Officer and Others, wherein learned Single Judge of this Court after taking into consideration, the earlier Division Bench Judgment in the case of Dattatray Genaba Lole and others Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others, reported in 2022 (1) Bom.C.R. 471 at paras 8.3 and 8.4 has stated that interference with the election process can be done only when the order under challenge is patently and demonstrably illegal, for example, by applying a non-existent rule or provision to the election process or failing to adhere to a mandatory provision. It has further held that the intervention in such cases has been explained as enabling or assisting the process of the election rather than thwarting or stalling it.

(11) Drawing support from the observations of this Court in the said judgment of the Dattatray (supra), it is the contention of the learned Senior Advocate that the present matter is are of those where interference is called for. He also places reliance on the judgment of this Court Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.3142/2023, Dhanraj Dattatray Patil Vs. State Co-operative Elections Authority and Others, where also the same ratio has been explained. He, therefore, submits that the orders which are primarily based on sub-section (A1) of Section 73-CA cannot withstand the scrutiny of law and therefore, are liable to be quashed.

(12) Per contra, the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mirza, appearing for the respondent No.1 the original objector counters the submissions of the petitioner. He submits that the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable since an equally efficacious remedy in the form of an election petition is available. He also submits that it is a settled principle of law and even a constitutional mandate that a writ court would not interfere in an ongoing election process in a normal circumstances. He submits that there is nothing extraordinary made out in the petition or there is nothing on record to show that the power under Article 226 and 227 are to be exercised at an intermediate stage in the ongoing election process.

(13) Both the learned Senior Advocates pleading for the petitioners and the respondent No.1 have also raised various grounds and have also taken me through the unamended and the amended provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. However, the petitions are liable to be rejected on a very short ground.

(14) As has been reproduced supra, Section 73-CA speaks about disqualification of committee and its members. The entire emphasis of the argument of the petitioners is on Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of the said Section 73-CA. It is the primary contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that Clause (f) and sub-clauses (i) of clause (f) onwards are only applicable to the District Central Co-operative Bank which factor ought to have been taken into consideration by the authorities below. However, a careful reading of the entire Section and more particularly, the placing of various sub-sections, clauses, sub-clauses would reveal that the reading of the said Section as has been done by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is totally incorrect.

(15) A deeper reading of the arrangements of the said Section would reveal that sub-section A1 is completed after the explanation of the expression “family”. Thereafter, there is sub-section(1) which begins with wordings ‘Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act…..’. Then, there is Clause (i) which says who would be ‘defaulter’ of any society. Then comes the explanation more particularly sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), which provide for various contingencies of defaulters in various types of cooperative societies. Sub-clause (f) of sub-section (1) speaks about the District Central Co-operative Bank or the State Co-operative Bank. Sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) are sub-clauses appended to sub-clause (f) and there the sub-clause (f) ends.

(16) Thereafter, clause (ii) onwards is there, which has to be read in continuation with clause (i). Therefore, clause (v) on which much emphasis was led by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to sub-clause (f), since the said clause i.e. sub-clause (f) contemplates only three contingencies as enumerated in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). This fact is explicit enough since the arrangement of the sections and more particularly after the contingency as contemplated in sub-clause (iii) to sub-clause (f) there is clause (ii). Thus, clause (v) which provides for carries on business of the kind carried on by the society either in the area of operation of the society has to be read with sub-section (1). Thus, if sub-section (1) and clause (v) are connected and read conjunctively the provision would be clear. Now the provision would read as no person shall be eligible for being appointed, nominated, elected, co-opted or, for being a member of the committee if he carries on business of the kind carried on by the society either in the area of operation of the society etc. It is thus clear that a person who carries on such business is not eligible for being elected to the Board of Directors of the society as stated supra. Only sub-clause (f) which speaks about the District Central Co-operative Banks ends with sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) and is not carried further. After sub-clause (i), (ii) & (iii) of clause (f) again comes clause (ii). It necessary means that said clause (ii) is to be read after initial clause (i) [which speaks of defaulter]. Thus, it is clear that the clause (v), on which the entire edifice of the case of the petitioner is based, not applicable to the District Central Co-operative Bank or the State Co-operative Bank.

(17) It is noteworthy to mention that sub-section (1) which has been quoted supra does not make out a differentiation between a District Central Co-operative Bank or other societies. Clause (i) of Sub Section (1) provides for six explanations for explaining the scope of defaulter. Sub-clause (f) thereof only restricts itself to the District Central Co-operative Bank which has other three sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) as stated supra. The purport of explanations as stated in sub-clauses (a) to (f) are only for a person who can be termed as a defaulter in various classes of societies. Therefore, clause (i) cannot be read in the fashion as has been sought to be canvassed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. It is, therefore, imperative and as a necessary sequel follows that the petitioner in the present case is disqualified as he comes within the teeth of Clause (v) to sub-section (1) of Section 73-CA. In my considered opinion since sub-section (1) does not make any classification between Societies and the District Central Co-operative Bank, general provision of sub-section (1) read with its clause (v) would squarely apply in the present case. It is not the case of even of the petitioner that he is or is not defaulters of the society making him ineligible to contest the election. In other words sub-clause (f) applies to District Central Co-operative Bank or the local co-operative Bank but is limited to its application to the definition and explanation of the term ‘defaulter’ and therefore, cannot be made applicable to sub-section (1). Thus, it is clear that the various ineligibilities or disqualifications in sub-section (1) are in addition to the generic provision embodied in sub-section (A1) of Section 73CA.

(18) In my considered opinion, therefore, the petitioner has incurred disqualification or is ineligible to contest the election as per sub-section (A1) as also clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 73-CA of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petition is, therefore, liable to be rejected and is rejected as such.

(19) As far as Writ Petition No.7756 of 2026 is concerned, the petitioner in the present petition happens to be a brother of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7758 of 2026. As is clear from the explanation to Section 73-CA that the expression ‘family’ shall have the same meaning as explained in the Explanation 1, to sub-section (2) of Section 75. It is clear that the brother is included in the term ‘family’ in the said Explanation (1). Thus the order disqualifying the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7756 of 2026 is also legally sustainable.

(20) Taking overall view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the case does not fall within the well laid down parameters of interference in the ongoing election process. The authorities below have correctly interpreted the provision as stated supra. No fault can be found in the said orders. In the context of what I have recorded above, it is not necessary to deal with the other submissions made by the learned Senior Advocates. The petitions are, therefore, meritless and liable to be rejected and are rejected, accordingly.

(21) Rule stands discharged.