Election nomination appeals under cooperative law are confined to the original record; fresh evidence is excluded from summary review.

A summary appellate remedy under Section 152A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was treated as confined to the record before the Returning Officer, so fresh documents could not be introduced to convert it into a full evidentiary inquiry; disputes needing proof beyond that record were said to belong to an election petition under Section 91. On prima facie material showing SARFAESI recovery action and a public notice identifying a candidate as a defaulter, supervisory interference under Article 227 was considered justified because the appellate order appeared to ignore relevant material and relied on inapposite authorities. The question whether all validly nominated candidates are necessary parties was left for larger Bench consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a prima facie case existed for interference under Article 227 with the appellate order accepting the nomination of a candidate alleged to be a defaulter; (ii) whether new documents could be relied upon in an appeal under Section 152A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; (iii) whether all validly nominated candidates are necessary parties in such an appeal.

Issue (i): Whether a prima facie case existed for interference under Article 227 with the appellate order accepting the nomination of a candidate alleged to be a defaulter.

Analysis: The nomination rejection had been founded on material showing initiation of recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI regime and a newspaper notice identifying the candidate as a defaulter. The appellate authority ignored this material and relied on authorities that had been overruled or were otherwise inapposite. The Court held that the material on record disclosed a strong prima facie case that the candidate fell within the disqualification for a defaulter under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, and that the appellate order reflected a patent error justifying supervisory interference and interim protection.

Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded on this issue, and interim relief was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether new documents could be relied upon in an appeal under Section 152A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Analysis: The appellate remedy under Section 152A was treated as a summary review confined to the material before the Returning Officer and the legality of the decision-making process. The Court held that permitting fresh evidence at that stage would convert the summary appeal into a full factual inquiry, contrary to the statutory scheme, and that disputes requiring proof beyond the original record belonged to the election petition remedy under Section 91.

Conclusion: New documents were held not to be admissible in an appeal under Section 152A.

Issue (iii): Whether all validly nominated candidates are necessary parties in such an appeal.

Analysis: The Court noted the competing authorities and expressed doubt about reading into Section 152A an implied requirement to implead all validly nominated candidates, emphasising the strictly statutory nature of election rights and the absence of an express mandate in the provision. However, because prior Division Bench authority had taken the contrary view and service on all affected candidates was not conclusively established, the Court did not finally dispose of this question and instead referred it for consideration by a larger Bench through the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Conclusion: The issue was not finally answered and was referred for consideration by a larger Bench.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was stayed during the pendency of the petition, and the matter was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration by a larger Bench on the question of necessary parties.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may grant interim protection in election matters where the record discloses a strong prima facie case of patent illegality or statutory disqualification, and a summary appellate remedy cannot be expanded into a full evidentiary trial by receiving fresh material not before the original authority.

---