Bombay High Court · 2025-04-02
MURLIDHAR RANGRAO GAIKWAD vs STATE COOPERTIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Citation / case number
- WP/4072/2025
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- MURLIDHAR RANGRAO GAIKWAD
- Respondent
- STATE COOPERTIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
Judgment text excerpt
wp4072-2025-J-FF-modified.doc AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4072 OF 2025 ATUL GANESH Murlidhar Rangrao Gaikwad, KULKARNI Age 69 years, Occupation Agriculture Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.04.02 residing at Vathar Kiroli, 16:59:40 +0530 Taluka Koregaon, District Satara … Petitioner V/s. State Co-operative Election Authority, Maharashtra, through it’s Chief Executive Officer, having its office at Mantralaya Extension, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400 032 & others … Respondents Mr. S.S. Patwardhan with Mr. Ajay RajeNimbalkar, Mr. Akshay Hardas, Mr. Atharva Kamble i/by Ms. Mrinal A. Shelar for the petitioner. Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Dilip Bodke with Ms. Pooja Deelip Patil for respondent Nos.1, 2, & 3. Mr. Bhooshan Mandlik with Mr. A.P. Pawar for respondent No.4. Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Kanetkar i/by Mr. Shivraj Patne for respondent No.5. Ms. Savita A. Prabhune, AGP for the State. Mr. Aditya P. Shirke for respondent Nos.72 & 109. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. RESERVED ON : APRIL 1, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 2 , 2025 1 wp4072-2025-J-FF-modified.doc JUDGMENT: 1. By way of the present Writ Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 17th March 2025 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.12 of 2025, whereby the said authority, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction conferred under Section 152A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the MCS Act”), has been pleased to allow the appeal preferred by respondent No.5. The said appeal had been preferred by respondent No.5 assailing the rejection of his nomination for el