The Maharashtra ordinance giving voting rights to government nominees on the board of Gokul Dairy “cannot be prima facie said to be tailor made for the subject Society”, the Bombay High Court’s Kolhapur circuit bench has said, refusing a stay but making the November 10 chairperson election subject to the outcome of the petitions and ordering separate ballots for elected directors and nominees.
Kolhapur: A prayer to stay the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 was rejected on Monday, November 9, by the Bombay High Court at its Kolhapur circuit bench. The ordinance allows four government-nominated experts to vote on the boards of large federal cooperatives, a change that directly affects the election of the chairperson of the Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh, known as Gokul Dairy [Shashikant Anandrao Patil Chuyekar & Ors. v. The Presiding Officer, Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh (Gokul) & Ors.].
Justice Neeraj P. Dhote, sitting as the vacation judge, passed the order on an interim application and a connected writ petition filed by the 13 elected directors of the society.
A ministerial proposal that predates the result
The Court noted that a proposal by a State minister to amend the Act for societies with large turnover was dated October 16, 2026, before the election results were declared on October 19. This, it said, prima facie showed the amendment was under consideration before the result. It held:
“In the light of above aspects, the impugned Ordinance cannot be prima facie said to be tailor made for the subject Society.”
“Examining the aforesaid aspects of the matters in light of the principles stated in the aforesaid Judgments, in my view, no case for stay to the impugned Ordinance is made out. Resultantly, the prayer for interim order / stay stands rejected.”
What the ordinance says
Promulgated by the Governor on November 6, 2026, the ordinance inserts a proviso into Section 73AAA(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. For federal societies, other than District Central Co-operative Banks, with an annual turnover above Rs 500 crore and any form of government assistance, the committee must include five government nominees: one government officer not below the rank of Assistant Registrar and four persons with relevant experience and qualifications. The four experts may vote in committee meetings “notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (9) of section 27” and the society’s bye-laws, though they cannot be elected office bearers.
The statement accompanying the ordinance says large cooperatives receiving State assistance need to function smoothly and effectively, and that experienced members with voting rights would help achieve that.
The election, the Division Bench order and the arguments
Results of the election to the society’s 25-member board were declared on October 19, 2026. On November 2, a Division Bench of the High Court directed that the election of the chairman be convened on November 10 after seven days’ notice to all 25 elected directors, clarifying that steps taken meanwhile would be subject to the outcome of the pending writ petition. The ordinance followed four days later.
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, argued that Gokul was the only society covered by the ordinance. They sought a clarification that only the 25 elected directors could vote for chairman. The State, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, defended the ordinance, and counsel for one of the respondents told the Court that three more societies in the State would also fall within it.
Separate ballots, notice and the next date
The Court issued notice on the writ petitions and directed that the proceedings of the November 10 meeting to elect the chairman will be subject to the outcome of the petitions. Since the challenge is sub judice, the Election Officer was told to keep separate ballot boxes for elected directors and government nominees, keep their ballot papers separate after counting, and preserve the proceedings, ballot papers and all election documents. The Court declined the clarification sought in the interim application.
The petitions are listed on November 25, 2026, and the parties are free to ask the Division Bench for an early final hearing. The ruling is interim; the validity of the ordinance has not been decided.
What the order leaves open
Courts are generally slow to stay a law or ordinance at the interim stage, and the order applies that settled caution: the timing of the ministerial proposal persuaded the Court that the ordinance was not, on a first look, aimed at one society. Whether the change to Section 73AAA is a valid exercise of the ordinance-making power remains open.
By keeping the nominees’ ballots apart from those of elected directors, the Court has ensured that the chairperson election can be reworked if the petitioners finally succeed. The arrangement protects both sides’ positions while the Division Bench hears the challenge.
Case Title: Shashikant Anandrao Patil Chuyekar & Ors. v. The Presiding Officer, Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh (Gokul) & Ors.; with Shashikant Anandrao Patil Chuyekar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case No.: Interim Application No. 1833 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 5762 of 2026; Writ Petition No. 5964 of 2026
Bench: Justice Neeraj P. Dhote (Vacation Court), Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur
Date of Order: November 9, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni for the petitioners and applicants; Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi with Misha Rohatgi for the State; Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar for some respondents
Next Date: November 25, 2026