The Co-operative Election Authority (CEA), under the Union Ministry of Cooperation, has sought clarification from the Maharashtra Registrar of Co-operative Societies regarding the appointment of an arbitrator in an election dispute involving Maharashtra-based Jalgaon Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Aniket Bhalchandra Patil, whose nomination for the bank’s Chairman post was declared invalid during the 2026–31 office-bearer elections.
According to an election notice dated June 9, 2026, Returning Officer Rohan Ghug (IAS), also identified as District Collector and Magistrate, Jalgaon, declared Patil’s nomination for Chairman invalid. The same notice listed the nomination of Prakash Mangilal Kothari for Vice-Chairman as valid.
According to the CEA’s communication, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench, through its order dated August 14, 2026, referred the matter to the competent authority under Section 84(2)(c) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The Court reportedly directed that the dispute be decided expeditiously, preferably within 30 days from the parties’ first appearance.
An arbitration award dated September 16, 2026, was subsequently issued by Mohan B. Moykhede, as recorded in the CEA’s communication.
However, the CEA stated that no order regarding Moykhede’s appointment as arbitrator by the competent authority was available in its records.
Referring to Section 84(4) of the Act and Notification S.O. 216(E) dated February 24, 2003, the CEA has sought clarification on whether Patil approached the Maharashtra Registrar for the appointment of an arbitrator in connection with the Returning Officer’s decision or pursuant to the High Court’s directions.
The Authority has further asked whether Moykhede was appointed by the competent authority to adjudicate the election dispute and, if so, requested a copy of the relevant appointment order.
The Maharashtra Registrar has been asked to submit a reply by October 27, 2026.
The CEA’s communication seeks clarification and documentary records concerning the arbitrator’s appointment. It does not contain any finding declaring the appointment or the arbitration award invalid.
