Bombay High Court Declines to Freeze Gokul Dairy Chairperson Poll, Leaves Ordinance Challenge Open
Kolhapur bench refuses interim stay on Maharashtra law granting voting rights to State-nominated directors; separate ballot custody ordered pending final adjudication
(Judicial Quest News Network)
10, Nov,2026-The Bombay High Court’s Kolhapur circuit bench has declined to stay, at the interim stage, a Maharashtra ordinance that gives State-nominated members voting rights on the boards of certain large cooperative societies.
The Court nevertheless directed election officials to preserve the voting record separately, ensuring that the challenge to the measure remains capable of effective adjudication.
The chairperson’s election and related proceedings will remain subject to the final outcome of the petition.
Vacation Judge Justice Neeraj P. Dhote was hearing Shashikant Anandrao Patil v. Presiding Officer, Kolhapur Zila Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh & Ors.
The petition concerns the Kolhapur District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union, popularly known as Gokul Dairy, and the election of its chairperson. Finding no prima facie basis for interim protection, the Court rejected the request to suspend the ordinance while the case is pending. Its order does not finally determine the constitutional or legal validity of the amendment.
The dispute follows the election of Gokul Dairy’s 25-member board. The Congress-backed panel led by MLC Satej Patil secured 13 seats, while the BJP–Shiv Sena Mahayuti alliance won 12.
The petitioners argued that the subsequent change in the law would alter the voting arithmetic after the board election and dilute the mandate expressed by the elected representatives of dairy farmers. They characterised the measure as a colourable exercise of legislative power.
The ordinance amends Section 73AAA (2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. As described in the report, it empowers the State to appoint five members to the boards of qualifying federal cooperative societies that receive State assistance and have annual turnover exceeding ₹500 crore; four of the five nominees are entitled to vote.
The State defended the amendment, submitting that expert nominees with voting rights would support institutional stability, transparency and oversight of cooperatives handling public funds.
Although the Court declined to halt the ordinance, it directed that ballots cast by the elected directors and State-nominated directors be kept separately.
The Election Officer was also asked to preserve the ballot papers, minutes and other relevant records.
These safeguards relate to the chairperson’s election scheduled for November 10 and are intended to preserve the material while the legal challenge remains pending.
The parties were granted liberty to approach the regular Division Bench after the vacation. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the petitioners, while senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented the State.
