{"id":401020,"date":"2026-11-11T15:00:17","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T09:30:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=401020"},"modified":"2026-11-11T16:42:54","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T11:12:54","slug":"bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/","title":{"rendered":"No interim stay on Ordinance giving Government nominees a vote in Gokul Chairman election: Bombay HC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In an application pertaining to election of the Chairman of “Gokul”, i.e., Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., the Vacation Bench of Neeraj P. Dhote, J., refused to stay the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026, which provides for 4 Government-nominated members to have voting rights in meetings of the committee of certain federal cooperative societies.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the Ordinance could not, at the prima facie stage, be considered tailor-made for Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit (Gokul), as the provision would also apply to three other federal societies in Maharashtra. The Court held that no case for interim stay of the Ordinance was made out, and directed that the election to the post of Chairman scheduled for 10 November 2026 would remain subject to the outcome of the pending writ petitions. The Court further directed the Election Officer to maintain separate ballot boxes for elected Directors and Government nominees and preserve the ballot papers and election records.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The proceedings arose from two writ petitions and an interim application concerning the election of the Chairman of Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit (Gokul), a federal cooperative society having an annual turnover of more than ₹500 crore.<\/p>\n

The elections to the Board of Directors of the Society were held, and the results were declared on 19 October 2026. The names of the elected Directors were formally published on 21 October 2026. The Board comprised 25 elected Directors.<\/p>\n

A meeting to elect the Chairman was initially scheduled for 29 October 2026. However, the meeting was adjourned for want of the required quorum. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 5762 of 2026 was instituted by 13 elected Directors.<\/p>\n

On 2 November 2026, the High Court directed that the election to the post of Chairman be convened on 10 November 2026, after issuing seven days’ prior notice to all 25 elected Directors. Pursuant to the direction, a notice dated 2 November 2026 was issued for the meeting.<\/p>\n

On 6 November 2026, the Governor of Maharashtra promulgated the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026<\/span>, amending Section 73-AAA(2)<\/a>, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Ordinance inserted a provision applicable to federal societies, other than District Central Co-operative Banks, having an annual turnover exceeding ₹500 crore and receiving government assistance in the form of share capital, loan, guarantee, grant, government land or any other form, whether in cash or kind. It provided for the inclusion of five Government-nominated members in the committee, comprising 1 government officer not below the rank of Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and 4 persons having the requisite experience and qualifications.<\/p>\n

Although the nominated members were not eligible to be elected as office-bearers, the Ordinance provided that the 4 nominated persons, excluding the government officer, would have the right to vote in meetings of the committee, notwithstanding Section 27(9)<\/a> Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act<\/a> and the bye-laws of the societies concerned.<\/p>\n

A petition was instituted by the same petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of the Ordinance. They sought, among other reliefs, a declaration that the Ordinance was manifestly arbitrary, ultra vires the Constitution and issued in colourable exercise of power, and a direction that government-nominated members had no right to vote in the election of the Chairman or in general meetings of the Society.<\/p>\n

The petitioners also sought interim stay of the Ordinance and a direction restraining the Government nominees from participating in the election of the Chairman or casting their votes in meetings of the Board.<\/p>\n

Separately, the elected Directors filed an interim application, seeking clarification that the High Court’s order dated 2 November 2026 permitted only the 25 elected Directors to remain present and cast their votes in the election of the Chairman. They also sought to restrain the Election Officer from permitting any person other than the 25 elected Directors, including government-nominated members, to vote in the election.<\/p>\n

Both matters were placed before the Vacation Court for consideration of interim relief.<\/p>\n

Submissions of Petitioners<\/p>\n

The petitioners contended that the Ordinance was promulgated on 6 November 2026, after the election process had commenced and after the rights of the elected Directors had crystallised. They argued that the Ordinance could not retrospectively alter the rules governing an election already underway.<\/p>\n

It was submitted that the Ordinance created artificial voters and altered the democratic process by conferring voting rights upon Government nominees shortly before the scheduled election of the Chairman. The petitioners relied upon Section 27(9)<\/a>, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act<\/a>, which provides that no nominee of the Government or of any financing bank on the committee of a society is entitled to vote at an election of officers of the committee.<\/p>\n

The petitioners further contended that the Ordinance effectively affected only the respondent Society, which was the only establishment with an annual turnover exceeding ₹500 crore. According to them, the Ordinance was introduced with an ulterior motive to control the Society and unsettle the democratic process.<\/p>\n

They also argued that the Ordinance was intended to nullify the consent order dated 2 November 2026, which had directed the election of the Chairman to be convened after notice to all 25 elected Directors. The promulgation of the Ordinance was therefore challenged as a colourable exercise of power, arbitrary and violative of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It was submitted that the Ordinance should be stayed or the meeting scheduled for 10 November 2026 should be postponed until the writ petitions were finally heard.<\/p>\n

Submissions of State of Maharashtra and other respondents<\/p>\n

The State opposed the prayer for interim stay, submitting that the challenge was to the validity of a legislative measure and that courts ordinarily exercised restraint in staying the operation of legislation. It was contended that an interim stay could be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the provision was ex facie unconstitutional or absurd.<\/p>\n

The State further submitted that the petitioners had failed to establish irreparable injury or any sufficient ground for staying the Ordinance. It argued that the measure was intended to ensure the smooth and effective functioning of large federal cooperative societies receiving government assistance and that the interests of the State were involved.<\/p>\n

The State disputed the contention that the Ordinance applied only to Gokul. It submitted that four federal societies in Maharashtra, including Gokul, had annual turnovers exceeding ₹500 crore and would fall within the scope of the provision.<\/p>\n

It was also submitted that the proposal for the amendment was already under consideration before the declaration of the election results and that the Ordinance was not an overnight measure intended to affect the ongoing election.<\/p>\n

The other respondents similarly opposed interim relief, contending that the petitioners had not established a prima facie case, irreparable injury or balance of convenience in their favour.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Findings<\/p>\n

Interim stay of legislation and exercise of the Ordinance-making power<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the arguments were confined to the prayer for interim stay of the impugned Ordinance. It considered the judgments relied upon by both sides and referred to the principles governing judicial review of the Ordinance-making power, constitutional challenges to legislation and the grant of interim relief against legislative measures.<\/p>\n

In Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar<\/span>, (2017) 3 SCC 1<\/a>, the Court noted that the power to promulgate an Ordinance was conditional upon the satisfaction that circumstances existed requiring immediate action. Judicial interference could arise where the exercise of power involved fraud on power or abuse of power for an oblique purpose. However, the Court was not required to examine the adequacy or sufficiency of the material underlying the satisfaction where relevant material existed.<\/p>\n

Referring to Shayara Bano v. Union of India<\/span>, (2017) 9 SCC 1<\/a>, the Court noted that a legislative provision could be struck down for violation of Article 14 only upon establishing a violation of the equality or equal protection clause. A law could not be struck down merely by describing it as arbitrary or unreasonable.<\/p>\n

The Court also referred to G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana<\/span>, (2019) 19 SCC 469<\/a>, particularly the principle concerning the presumption against retrospective operation of legislation. It noted that, unless a contrary intention appeared, legislation was presumed not to operate retrospectively.<\/p>\n

On the question of granting interim relief against legislation, the Court considered Health for Millions v. Union of India<\/span>, (2014) 14 SCC 496<\/a>, and Bhavesh D. Parish v. Union of India<\/span>, (2000) 5 SCC 471<\/a>. These decisions recognised the restraint ordinarily exercised by courts while considering interim orders against legislative provisions. The Court noted that, unless a provision was manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional, legislative operation should not ordinarily be suspended merely because an arguable challenge had been raised.<\/p>\n

The Court also referred to Jayshri Laxmanrao Patil<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, (2021) 2 SCC 785<\/a>, while considering whether courts were powerless to grant interim protection against legislation. It noted that there was no absolute rule preventing interim orders where an enactment was ex facie unconstitutional or contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

On the question of classification under Article 14, the Court relied upon Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar<\/span>, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6<\/a>, which recognised that a classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia distinguishing the persons or things grouped together from those left out, and that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.<\/p>\n

The Court further referred to Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India<\/span>, (2005) 6 SCC 281<\/a>, for the principle that the mere possibility of abuse of a provision does not, by itself, invalidate legislation. It also considered the decisions in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality<\/span>, (1969) 2 SCC 283<\/a>, and Madan Mohan Pathak<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (1978) 2 SCC 50<\/a>, concerning the effect of legislative action on judicial decisions.<\/p>\n

Applicability of the Ordinance to other federal cooperative societies<\/p>\n

The Court noted that Gokul was undisputedly a federal cooperative society having an annual turnover exceeding ₹500 crore. It also considered the circumstances surrounding the election of the Board of Directors and the promulgation of the Ordinance.<\/p>\n

The election results were declared on 19 October 2026, and the names of the 25 elected Directors were formally published on 21 October 2026. The meeting scheduled for 29 October 2026 to elect the Chairman was adjourned for want of quorum. Thereafter, by order dated 2 November 2026, the Court directed that the election be convened on 10 November 2026 after issuing seven days’ prior notice to all 25 elected Directors.<\/p>\n

The Ordinance was promulgated on 6 November 2026, inserting the additional proviso to Section 73-AAA(2)<\/a>, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court examined the petitioners’ contention that the Ordinance had been introduced specifically to affect Gokul. This contention was disputed by the respondents, who submitted that three other societies in Maharashtra would also fall within the scope of the Ordinance, namely:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Jalgaon District Cooperative Milk Union.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Sangamner Taluka Cooperative Milk Union.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Court also considered a communication dated 16 October 2026, enclosed with the petition, indicating that a proposal for amendment of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act had been made by the Minister in relation concerned to societies having a turnover exceeding ₹3000 crore, with a view to enabling the government to nominate four Directors.<\/p>\n

    Since the communication predated the declaration of the election results on 19 October 2026, the Court observed that it prima facie indicated that the proposal for the amendment which resulted in the impugned Ordinance was under consideration before the election results were declared.<\/p>\n

    The Court also took note of Section 27(9)<\/a>, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act<\/a>, which provides that Government nominees are not entitled to vote at an election of officers of the committee. It noted that the impugned Ordinance expressly provided that, notwithstanding Section 27(9) and the bye-laws of the concerned societies, the nominated members, except the government officer, would have the right to vote in meetings of the committee.<\/p>\n

    On consideration of these circumstances, the Court held that the impugned Ordinance cannot be prima facie said to be tailor-made for the subject Society.<\/p>\n

    Effect of the earlier order dated 2 November 2026<\/p>\n

    The Court also considered the petitioners’ submission that the Ordinance had been promulgated to nullify the order dated 2 November 2026, which had directed the election of the Chairman to be convened on 10 November 2026 after notice to all 25 elected Directors.<\/p>\n

    The Court noted that the Division Bench, while passing the order dated 2 November 2026, had clarified that any steps taken by the parties in the meantime would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The order had also been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties recorded in the earlier order dated 30 October 2026.<\/p>\n

    The Court held that these observations showed that the steps taken in the meantime, including the issuance of the impugned Ordinance, would remain subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No. 5762 of 2026.<\/p>\n

    Considering the principles laid down in the judgments cited by both sides and the circumstances of the case, the Court held that no case for interim stay of the Ordinance was made out. The Court accordingly rejected the prayer for interim stay.<\/p>\n

    Decision<\/p>\n

    The Court:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Rejected the prayer for interim stay<\/span> of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Rejected the request for clarification<\/span> sought in Interim Application No. 1833 of 2026 concerning the participation and voting rights of Government-nominated members in the election of the Chairman.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      Issued notice to the respondents in the writ petitions and directed them to file their responses.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    4. \n

      Directed that the proceedings of the meeting scheduled for 10 November 2026<\/span> for election to the post of Chairman would remain subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    5. \n

      Directed the Election Officer\/Presiding Officer to maintain separate ballot boxes for the elected Directors and Government nominees<\/span>. After counting, the ballot papers of the elected Directors and Government nominees were to be kept separately. The Election Officer\/Presiding Officer was also directed to preserve the election proceedings, ballot papers and all relevant documents.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    6. \n

      Directed that the writ petitions be listed on 25 November 2026.<\/span> The parties were granted liberty to request the concerned Division Bench for an expeditious final hearing of the writ petitions at the admission stage.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The Court’s order concerned the interim relief sought against the Ordinance. The challenge to its constitutional validity remained pending before the Division Bench.<\/p>\n

      [Shashikant Anandrao Patil Chuyekar<\/span> v. Presiding Officer, Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, Kolhapur (Gokul)<\/span>, WP No. 5762 of 2026, decided on 9-11-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

      Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

      For the petitioners:<\/span> Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhavi, Senior Counsel a\/w. Shri. Avishkar Singhavi, Shri. S. R. Ganbavale and Shri. Uday Bhatia, Counsel i\/by. Shri. Dhairyasheel Pawar, Counsel for the Petitioners in W. P. No.5964\/2026 Shri. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel a\/w. Shri. Akshay Shinde, Counsel i\/by. Shri. Dhairyasheel P. Pawar, Counsel for the Applicants in I.A. No.1833 of 2026 and for Petitioners in WP No.5762\/2026<\/p>\n

      For the respondents:<\/span> Sarthak Diwan, Counsel for the Applicant in WP No.5762 of 2026<\/p>\n

      Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (through V.C.), a\/w Misha Rohatgi, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shivang B. Varma, Devanshi Singh, Counsel for the State,<\/p>\n

      Neha Bhide, Government Pleader, Shishir Hirey, Government Pleader, Amarsingh Girase, Government Pleader, V. M. Mali, APP for the State.<\/p>\n

      R. D. Phade, Counsel for Respondents 3 & 5 in WP No.5762 of 2026 and for Respondent 6 in W. P. No.5964 of 2026 (through V.C.)<\/p>\n

      Anil Anturkar, Senior Counsel i\/by. Rushikesh Chavan, Counsel for Respondents 11 & 13 in WP. No.5762\/2026 & I.A. No.1833\/2026 & for Respondents 12 and 14 in W. P. No.5964\/2026<\/p>\n

      Pralhad Paranjpe i\/by. Dilip Bodake, Counsel for Respondents1, 2 & 4 in W.P. No.5762 of 2026 & Respondents3 & 5 in W. P. No.5964\/2026<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The Court directed the Election Officer\/Presiding Officer to maintain separate ballot boxes for the elected Directors and Government nominees.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67547,"featured_media":401033,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[42164,119419,2518,119405,119417,119420,119422,119415,119416,119409,119407,119408,119412,119413,119424,119421,119406,119410,110919,119411,65941,47590,119418,119423,119414],"class_list":["post-401020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-article-14-constitution-of-india","tag-article-213-constitution-of-india","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-bombay-high-court-kolhapur-bench","tag-chairman-election-of-cooperative-society","tag-constitutional-validity-of-ordinance","tag-cooperative-societies-governance","tag-cooperative-society-elections","tag-gokul-chairman-election","tag-gokul-cooperative-society","tag-gokul-dairy","tag-gokul-milk","tag-government-nominees","tag-government-nominated-directors","tag-indian-cooperative-law","tag-interim-stay-of-ordinance","tag-justice-neeraj-p-dhote","tag-kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudh-utpadak-sangh","tag-maharashtra-co-operative-societies-act","tag-maharashtra-co-operative-societies-amendment-ordinance-2026","tag-scc-times","tag-section-279","tag-section-73aaa","tag-separate-ballot-boxes","tag-voting-rights-of-government-nominees"],"yoast_head":"\nGokul Chairman Election: Bombay HC Refuses Stay on Ordinance | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay HC refuses interim stay on Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Amendment Ordinance 2026 granting voting rights to four Government nominees in qualifying federal societies; orders separate ballot boxes for Gokul Chairman election.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"No interim stay on Ordinance giving Government nominees a vote in Gokul Chairman election: Bombay HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay HC refuses interim stay on Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Amendment Ordinance 2026 granting voting rights to four Government nominees in qualifying federal societies; orders separate ballot boxes for Gokul Chairman election.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-11-11T09:30:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-11-11T11:12:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Roushan K. Singh\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"No interim stay on Ordinance giving Government nominees a vote in Gokul Chairman election: Bombay HC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Roushan K. Singh\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Roushan K. Singh\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f59bfdb5926e41d0293b754d7d57e8fe\"},\"headline\":\"No interim stay on Ordinance giving Government nominees a vote in Gokul Chairman election: Bombay HC\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-11-11T09:30:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-11-11T11:12:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2525,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Article 14 Constitution of India\",\"Article 213 Constitution of India\",\"Bombay High Court\",\"Bombay High Court Kolhapur Bench\",\"Chairman Election of Cooperative Society\",\"Constitutional Validity of Ordinance\",\"Cooperative Societies Governance\",\"Cooperative Society Elections\",\"Gokul Chairman Election\",\"Gokul Cooperative Society\",\"Gokul Dairy\",\"Gokul Milk\",\"Government Nominees\",\"Government-Nominated Directors\",\"Indian Cooperative Law\",\"Interim Stay of Ordinance\",\"Justice Neeraj P. Dhote\",\"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh\",\"Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act\",\"Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Amendment Ordinance 2026\",\"SCC Times\",\"Section 279\",\"Section 73AAA\",\"Separate Ballot Boxes\",\"Voting Rights of Government Nominees\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/\",\"name\":\"Gokul Chairman Election: Bombay HC Refuses Stay on Ordinance | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-11-11T09:30:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-11-11T11:12:54+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f59bfdb5926e41d0293b754d7d57e8fe\"},\"description\":\"Bombay HC refuses interim stay on Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Amendment Ordinance 2026 granting voting rights to four Government nominees in qualifying federal societies; orders separate ballot boxes for Gokul Chairman election.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Gokul Chairman Election\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/11\\\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"No interim stay on Ordinance giving Government nominees a vote in Gokul Chairman election: Bombay HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f59bfdb5926e41d0293b754d7d57e8fe\",\"name\":\"Roushan K. Singh\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/0e73a76a985d19d18143dd5f4b0464f2e474230659d082cd26d9c26b3c8da7a2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/0e73a76a985d19d18143dd5f4b0464f2e474230659d082cd26d9c26b3c8da7a2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/0e73a76a985d19d18143dd5f4b0464f2e474230659d082cd26d9c26b3c8da7a2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Roushan K. Singh\"},\"description\":\"Roushan K. Singh is a former Legal Researcher at the Delhi High Court and currently works as a Legal Executive at SCC Online. His areas of interest include legal research, intellectual property law, arbitration, Legal Tech, and other emerging and interdisciplinary areas of law. The author can be reached at: roushan.singh@ebcpublishing.in\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/roushan-k-singh\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/roushan\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gokul Chairman Election: Bombay HC Refuses Stay on Ordinance | SCC Times","description":"Bombay HC refuses interim stay on Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Amendment Ordinance 2026 granting voting rights to four Government nominees in qualifying federal societies; orders separate ballot boxes for Gokul Chairman election.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"No interim stay on Ordinance giving Government nominees a vote in Gokul Chairman election: Bombay HC","og_description":"Bombay HC refuses interim stay on Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Amendment Ordinance 2026 granting voting rights to four Government nominees in qualifying federal societies; orders separate ballot boxes for Gokul Chairman election.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-11-11T09:30:17+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-11-11T11:12:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Roushan K. Singh","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"No interim stay on Ordinance giving Government nominees a vote in Gokul Chairman election: Bombay HC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Roushan K. Singh","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/"},"author":{"name":"Roushan K. Singh","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f59bfdb5926e41d0293b754d7d57e8fe"},"headline":"No interim stay on Ordinance giving Government nominees a vote in Gokul Chairman election: Bombay HC","datePublished":"2026-11-11T09:30:17+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-11T11:12:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/"},"wordCount":2525,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.webp","keywords":["Article 14 Constitution of India","Article 213 Constitution of India","Bombay High Court","Bombay High Court Kolhapur Bench","Chairman Election of Cooperative Society","Constitutional Validity of Ordinance","Cooperative Societies Governance","Cooperative Society Elections","Gokul Chairman Election","Gokul Cooperative Society","Gokul Dairy","Gokul Milk","Government Nominees","Government-Nominated Directors","Indian Cooperative Law","Interim Stay of Ordinance","Justice Neeraj P. Dhote","Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh","Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act","Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Amendment Ordinance 2026","SCC Times","Section 279","Section 73AAA","Separate Ballot Boxes","Voting Rights of Government Nominees"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/","name":"Gokul Chairman Election: Bombay HC Refuses Stay on Ordinance | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.webp","datePublished":"2026-11-11T09:30:17+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-11T11:12:54+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f59bfdb5926e41d0293b754d7d57e8fe"},"description":"Bombay HC refuses interim stay on Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Amendment Ordinance 2026 granting voting rights to four Government nominees in qualifying federal societies; orders separate ballot boxes for Gokul Chairman election.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Gokul Chairman Election"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/bombay-hc-gokul-chairman-election-government-nominees-voting-rights-ordinance\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"No interim stay on Ordinance giving Government nominees a vote in Gokul Chairman election: Bombay HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f59bfdb5926e41d0293b754d7d57e8fe","name":"Roushan K. Singh","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0e73a76a985d19d18143dd5f4b0464f2e474230659d082cd26d9c26b3c8da7a2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0e73a76a985d19d18143dd5f4b0464f2e474230659d082cd26d9c26b3c8da7a2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0e73a76a985d19d18143dd5f4b0464f2e474230659d082cd26d9c26b3c8da7a2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Roushan K. Singh"},"description":"Roushan K. Singh is a former Legal Researcher at the Delhi High Court and currently works as a Legal Executive at SCC Online. His areas of interest include legal research, intellectual property law, arbitration, Legal Tech, and other emerging and interdisciplinary areas of law. The author can be reached at: roushan.singh@ebcpublishing.in","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/roushan-k-singh\/"],"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/roushan\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/blog-2026-11-11T164010.477.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/401020","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67547"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=401020"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/401020\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":401035,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/401020\/revisions\/401035"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/401033"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=401020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=401020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=401020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}