A Rule 57A no-confidence notice remains valid absent demonstrable prejudice to the concerned officer.

The petitioner, Sabhapati of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, was facing criminal prosecution and was lodged in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.

On 8 September 2026, certain members requisitioned a special meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against him. On 11 September 2026, the Director of Marketing issued a notice convening the special meeting for 21 September 2026 under Section 73-ID of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rule 57A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961.

The petitioner challenged the notice, contending that it had been served on his wife rather than personally upon him, that the grounds and supporting documents relating to the no-confidence motion had not been furnished, and that the notice violated the mandatory requirements of Rule 57A(2)(b).

Whether the impugned notice convening the special meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion complied with the requirements of Rule 57A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961.

Whether service of the notice and its annexures upon the petitioner’s wife, while the petitioner was in custody, deprived him of a reasonable and effective opportunity to defend himself against the no-confidence motion.

Whether the petitioner established sufficient prejudice warranting interference under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Court applied Section 73-ID of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rule 57A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, which prescribe the procedure for a no-confidence motion against elected officers of a co-operative society.

Rule 57A requires notice of the special meeting to be issued to the concerned officer and accompanied by the requisition, its enclosures and the agenda.

Rule 57A(7)(h)(ii) further requires that the officer against whom the motion is moved, or any other member on his behalf, be permitted to defend the motion.

The governing principle applied by the Court was that procedural irregularity warrants writ interference only where it causes demonstrable prejudice or deprives the affected party of a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard.

The Court examined the impugned notice and found that it contained the requisition and the no-confidence motion with the relevant annexures, thereby satisfying the requirements of Rule 57A.

Although the notice was accepted by the petitioner’s wife rather than served upon him personally, the Court noted that the petitioner was aware of the notice and its contents.

Further, Rule 57A(7)(h)(ii) enabled him to authorise another committee member to defend him at the special meeting.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner had not demonstrated any actual prejudice or deprivation of an effective opportunity to contest the motion.

The notice was therefore held to be procedurally compliant and not liable to be quashed.

The writ petition was dismissed, the challenge to the notice failed, and the Rule was discharged.