Admitted cooperative society members cannot be excluded from the voters’ list absent a lawful challenge.

Amitkumar Patel and M/s. Brahmani Infra purchased flats in Kutcchi Lohana Co-operative Housing Society, completed the required transfer formalities, paid the applicable fees and were admitted as members at the Society’s meeting on 30 June 2025.

Share certificates were issued in their favour, but their names were omitted from the final voters’ list for the Society’s 2026–2031 Managing Committee election.

The Election Officer rejected an objection to the omission, relying on the Administrator’s report, which questioned the transfers.

The petitioners sought inclusion in the voters’ list.

The election was scheduled for 6 November 2026.

1. Whether members admitted to the Society and issued share certificates could be excluded from the voters’ list on the basis of objections to the transfers that had not been challenged through lawful proceedings.

2. Whether the Court could direct correction of the voters’ list after the election process had commenced, without stalling or otherwise interfering with that process.

Section 27 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 governs members’ voting rights.

The Court applied the principle that where a person has been admitted to membership and share certificates have been transferred in that person’s favour, that membership may be challenged only through lawful means; objections or disapproval by other members do not, by themselves, justify excluding the member from the voters’ list.

The Court also recognised that an election process should not be stalled once initiated, while distinguishing a direction to correct the voters’ list that permits the election to proceed as scheduled.

The Court found that both petitioners had been admitted to membership and issued share certificates following the transfers.

It noted that no proceedings had been brought to challenge the relevant transfers or the earlier recognition of Varun Vitthal Thakkar as Chairman, and that the Election Officer’s rejection did not itself give reasons beyond relying on the Administrator’s report.

In those circumstances, the unresolved objections to the transfers did not justify denying the petitioners’ voting rights.

The Court considered that directing their inclusion would not stall the election, but would allow it to proceed under the declared programme with the voters’ list corrected.

It directed the Returning Officer to include their names and permit them to vote, with the necessary corrections to be made within 24 hours.

The election was to proceed as scheduled, and both petitions were disposed of with Rule made absolute in those terms.