No New Documents in Appeal u/s 152A to Prove Candidate Eligibility | HC

Case Details: Murlidhar Rangrao Gaikwad v. State Co-operative Election Authority - [2025] 175 taxmann.com 435 (HC-Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Amit Borkar, J.
• S.S. Patwardhan & Ms Mrinal A. Shelar, Sr. Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Deelip Patil Bankar, Girish S. Godbole, Sr. Advs., Dilip Bodke, Ms Pooja Deelip Patil, Shailendra Kanetkar & Ms Savita A. Prabhune, AGP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, Respondent No.1, in its capacity as the competent authority, published an election programme for conducting an election to the Managing Committee of Respondent No.4-Co-operative Society. In pursuance of the said election programme, both the petitioner and respondent No.5 submitted their respective nomination papers for contesting the election to the Managing Committee of respondent No.4.

During the scrutiny of nomination papers, a specific objection was raised by the petitioner, pointing out that respondent no. 5 had defaulted on a substantial financial liability of over Rs. 6 crores, as evidenced by a public notice issued by the secured creditor, which was published in a widely circulated newspaper.

The original publication of an auction notice initiated under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, read with Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI against respondent No.5 as a defaulter was duly produced before respondent No.3–Returning Officer during scrutiny proceedings. Despite this, the Appellate Authority proceeded to accept the nomination paper.

It was noted that the challenge raised by the petitioner was not merely an individual grievance, but touched upon the core issue of legality and propriety of the electoral process and the objection raised by the petitioner regarding disqualification was substantiated by credible and unimpeachable documentary evidence, which had been disregarded by the Appellate Authority without any application of mind.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that if the election were allowed to proceed with the inclusion of an ineligible candidate, the entire process would be liable to be set aside at a later stage, resulting in the wastage of public time and resources, and causing irreparable injury to the petitioner.

The High Court held that it is not legally permissible for a person to place new documents on record in an appeal under Section 152A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act to prove a candidate’s eligibility or ineligibility. Further, if such documents were not produced before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny, they cannot be considered now in the appeal. Thus, Section 152A offers only a limited and summary remedy.

The High Court also held that the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent no. 5 by the Appellate Authority suffered from a patent error and was contrary to the statutory scheme governing elections under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act), and relegating the petitioner to the remedy of an election petition under Section 91 would result in grave injustice and render the entire exercise nugatory. Thus, the instant writ against the action of the Appellate Authority was to be allowed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 697 (Para 75) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Jagdish Labu Badhe v. State Cooperative Election Authority (2001) 1 HCC (Bom) 90 (para 12)
• Kerbaji Maroti Rao Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 1988 Mh.L.J. 157 (para 13)
• Keshavrao Narayanrao Patil v. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Akola 1987 Mh.L.J. 709 (para 13)
• Narayan Gujabrao Bhoyar v. Yeotmal Zilla Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Yeotmal 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 500 (para 14)
• Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982) 1 SCC 691 (para 16)
• Asarm Patilba Gorde v. State of Maharashtra 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 860 (para 16)
• Madhav Atmaram Sahakari v. Aselmo Furtado 2018 (2) Mh.L.J. 258 (para 17)
• Pandurang Hindurao Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2023 (3) Mh.L.J. 95 (para 19)
• N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952) 3 SCR 218 (para 19)
• N.B. Khare v. Election Commission 1957 13 ELR 112 (para 19)
• Chandrakant Mahadev Patole v. State of Maharashtra 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2486 (para 20)
• Dattatray Genaba Lole v. Divisional Joint Registrar 2022 (1) Bom.C.R. 471 (para 20)
• Mohd. Tallib v. Dr. A.S. Kuchewar 2007 (4) Mh.L.J. 557 (para 20)
• Tukaram Hari Khamkar v. Shree Bharat Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. [Writ Petition No. 2614 of 1982] (para 21)
• Ugustion Mascarenhas v. State of Goa [Writ Petition No. 2 of 2012, dated 12-1-2023] (para 22)
• Nashik District Labour Contract Co-operative Societies Federation Ltd. v. Bhimrao Kondaji Jejure [Writ Petition No. 5218 of 2005, dated 30-8-2010] (para 22)
• Vijaysingh Krishnarao Parbat v. Returning Officer, Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 485 (para 22)
• Avinash Tukaram Patil v. Returning Officer, Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit Kolhapur (Gokul) 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5388 (para 28)
• Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade v. State Election Commission AIR 2021 Bom 90 (para 28)
• Sarjerao Dinkarrao Mane v. Returning Officer, Shri Chatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana [Writ Petition No. 5228 of 2023, dated 12-4-2023] (para 28)
• Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath [Civil Appeal No. 1629 of 2016, dated 22-2-2016] (para 28)
• Pandurang Laxman Kadam v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 1 ABR 336 (para 30)
• Kishor Rajaram Sawant v. Returning Office [LPA No. 142 of 1996, dated 26-7-1996] (para 52)
• Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V. & P. Sangh Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 1 SCC 133 (para 66)
• Pundlik v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 7 SCC 181 (para 66)
• Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 8 SCC 509 (para 66)
• Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (2000) 8 SCC 216 (para 67)
• K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan (1999) 4 SCC 526 (para 69)
• Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 4 SCC 697 (para 71).