Judgment : Not on board. Taken on production board. 1. The seven Petitioners herein are the members of the Respondent No.5 i.e. The Jackson Co-operative Credit Society of the employees of the Western Railway Limited, which is a Multi State Co-operative Society. The elections in the society are scheduled to be held on 22 nd December, 2025. As per Rule 15(1)(c) of The Railways Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, the Petitioners being Railways’ employees, who have held more than two elective terms in the office of the society, are required to obtain permissions from the employer for participating /contesting the elections. There is a Circular dated 27 th February, 2020, which restricts the members who have held more than two terms, from contesting the elections of the society. 2. The Circular dated 27 th February, 2020 provides that the government servants can hold elective office in any body in their entire career for a period of two terms or for a period of five years, whichever is earlier. The criteria laid down by the Circular dated 27 th February, 2020 is in modification of similar criteria laid down in the earlier Office Memorandum dated 5 th August, 2019, wherein, the embargo was for two terms or four years. 3. The Petitioners had earlier not be granted permission to participate / contest the election. As such, they had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (L) No.33706 of 2025 inter-alia assailing the Circulars dated 5 th August, 2019 as well as 27 th February, 2020. However, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioners had, with the leave of the Court, submitted applications seeking sanction of the authorities under Rule 15(1) (c). Such sanction was granted by order dated 27 th November, 2025. Therefore, Writ Petition (L) No.33706 of 2025 was withdrawn by the Petitioners with liberty to approach again as and when a fresh cause of action arises. 4. The Respondent No.1 i.e. the Collector and District Magistrate, Mumbai City has been appointed as Returning Officer to conduct the election of the Respondent No.5-Society and the election schedule of the society has also been notified fixing the date of election on 22 nd December, 2025. The Petitioners had submitted their nominations. However, by the communication dated 8 th December, 2025, their nominations stood rejected. The Petitioners had submitted their nominations. However, by the communication dated 8 th December, 2025, their nominations stood rejected. The ground for rejection of the nominations, as indicated in the letter dated 8 th December, 2025, is on account of the fact that the Petitioners did not meet the requirement of Circular dated 27 th February, 2020 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Government of India. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition has been filed inter-alia assailing the validity of the Circular dated 27 th February 2020. By way of interim relief, the Petitioners have sought a direction upon the Respondent No.1 / Returning Officer to provisionally accept their nominations and allow them to contest the election scheduled to be held on 22 nd December, 2025. 5. The prayers made in Writ Petition are extracted herein below for ready reference:- “a) By an appropriate Writ and/or direction and/or order of this Hon’ble Court, the letter/communication dated 08/12/2025 under reference no. 5. The prayers made in Writ Petition are extracted herein below for ready reference:- “a) By an appropriate Writ and/or direction and/or order of this Hon’ble Court, the letter/communication dated 08/12/2025 under reference no. RO/JCCS-BOD/ Election/2025-3030/20 issued by Respondent no.1 (annexed to the petition at Exh.L) be quashed and set aside and Respondent no.1 be directed to publish fresh list of valid nominations by including the name of the petitioners herein; b) By an appropriate Writ and/or direction and/or order, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the Office Memorandum dated 05/08/2019 and Office Memorandum dated 27/02/2020 issued by Respondent no.4 restricting the tenure for 2 terms or 5 years maximum to be office bearers of such Society, is restrictive arbitrary and in violation of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and liable to be struck down; c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents and specifically the Respondent no.2 Co-operative Election Authority not to insist upon the employees working with Railway board to take prior permission under Rule 15 of the CCS Conduct Rules to become members or office bearers or stand for election of office bearers of Respondent no.5; d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents and specifically the Respondent no.2 Co-operative Election Authority not to restrict the tenure of the office bearers of the recognized Society i.e. Respondent no.5 to 2 terms or 5 years maximum; e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the captioned matter, the effect and/or execution and/or implementation of the letter/communication dated 08/12/2025 under reference no. RO/JCCS-BOD/ Election/2025-3030/20 issued by Respondent no.1 (annexed to the petition at Exh. RO/JCCS-BOD/ Election/2025-3030/20 issued by Respondent no.1 (annexed to the petition at Exh. 'L') be stayed/suspended; f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, Respondent no.1 be directed to publish fresh list of valid nominations by including the name of petitioners herein; g) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the insistence of the Respondent no.2 of a restricted tenure of 2 terms of 5 years maximum to be office bearers of such Society is restrictive arbitrary and in violation of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and liable to be struck down; h) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents and specifically the Respondent no.2 Co-operative Election Authority not to restrict the tenure of the office bearers of the recognized Society i.e. Respondent no.5 to 2 terms or 5 yea maximum; i) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, the petitioners be permitted to contest the elections for the post of Board of Directors of Respondent no.5 Credit Society for the tenure of 2025 to 2030; j) Interim/ad-interim reliefs be granted in terms of prayer clause 'e', f','g', 'h'& 'i' above. k) Any other and further relief be granted.” 6. Mr. Girish Godbole, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.5 has resisted the Prayers made in the Writ Petition, more particularly, the prayer for interim relief, by contending that there is an alternative statutory remedy available to the Petitioners under Section 84(2)(c) of the Multi State Co- Operative Societies Act, 2002 (the Act of 2002). As such, the Writ Petition ought to be dismissed on such count alone. 7. In support of his above submissions, Mr. Godbole has relied upon and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath and ors. reported in Civil Appeal No.1629 of 2016. 8. Mr. Suraj Gupte, learned AGP has appeared for the State. 9. 7. In support of his above submissions, Mr. Godbole has relied upon and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath and ors. reported in Civil Appeal No.1629 of 2016. 8. Mr. Suraj Gupte, learned AGP has appeared for the State. 9. In so far as the challenge to the Circular 5 th August, 2019 and dated 27 th February, 2020 are concerned, it is correct that in the previous round also the Petitioners had challenged the said Circulars, but in view of the withdrawal of the Writ Petition, the question of the validity of the Circulars could not be gone into by this Court. 10. Be that as it may, in the present case, the Petitioners are aggrieved due to rejection of their nominations. Such rejection is apparently on the ground that the Petitioners do not fulfill the requirement of the Circular dated 27 th February, 2020. In other words, according to the Respondent No.1, the Petitoners have already held office in the Board for more than two elected terms or five years, therefore, were not eligible to contest the upcoming election of the society. 11. Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners has argued that once the employer has given permission to the Petitioners to participate/contest the election, it was not open for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination of the Petitioners, that too only on the ground of non-compliance of the conditions laid down in the circular dated 27 th February, 2020. He further submits that the Respondent No.1 has not only misconducted himself by rejecting the nominations of the Petitioners by ignoring the earlier consent/permission granted by the employer but has also committed contempt of this Court by acting in violation of earlier order(s) of this Court. 12. Referring to the provisions of the Act of 2002 and the rules framed thereunder, more particularly, Rule 19-L of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules, 2002, Mr. Anturkar has further submitted that in the absence of any objection pertaining to the nominations of the Petitioners raised by any candidate or his proposer or seconder, it was not open for the Returning Officer to suo-moto scrutinize the nomination papers and reject the same on any ground not contemplated under Rule 19-L(1). On such count, Mr. Anturkar has further submitted that in the absence of any objection pertaining to the nominations of the Petitioners raised by any candidate or his proposer or seconder, it was not open for the Returning Officer to suo-moto scrutinize the nomination papers and reject the same on any ground not contemplated under Rule 19-L(1). On such count, Mr. Anturkar has argued that this is a fit case for interference by the Court, as otherwise it is not only amount to undermining the majesty of this court but would also send a wrong message to the Returning Officer/ Officials. 13. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the materials available on record. What is to be noted herein is that as per Rule 15(1)(c), the requirement is for the candidates to obtain permission from the employer, so as to participate in the election. Such permission, in our view, would be completely different from the eligibility of a candidate to submit his nomination. In order to successfully submit nomination for an election process, the candidate must fulfill all conditions which are relevant for the purpose. If the nomination is rejected improperly, then the same would give rise to an election dispute and remedy in respect whereof would lie as per the prescriptions of the statute, which in the present case, is under Section 84(2)(c) which reads as follows:- “Section 84(2)(c)-Any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of a multi-State co-operative society.” 14. There is no dispute about the fact that the office to which the Petitioners are seeking election to would come within the definition of “Officer”, as provided under Section 3(t) of the Act, 2002. 15. In the case of Shaji K. Joseph (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when the election process has started, it would not be proper for the High Court to interdict such process, more particularly, when an alternative statutory remedy was available to the aggrieved party. 16. In the present case also, as noted above, the process of election of the Respondent No.5-society has already commenced and the Petitioners are aggrieved due to rejection of their nominations. This, in our opinion, would give rise to an election dispute which can be agitated by availing statutory remedy provided under Section 84(2)(c) of the Act, 2002 seeking the relief of setting aside the election of the successful candidate. This, in our opinion, would give rise to an election dispute which can be agitated by availing statutory remedy provided under Section 84(2)(c) of the Act, 2002 seeking the relief of setting aside the election of the successful candidate. 17. When statutory remedy is provided to the Petitioners, the Writ Court would be loath in interfering in such matter, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On such ground, the prayer for interim prayer is hereby declined. 18. However, having regard to the other reliefs prayed for by the Petitioners, more particularly, the reliefs pertaining to the circular dated 27 th February, 2020, we are inclined to examine the larger legal issues involved in this Writ Petition. 19. Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 27 th January, 2026. 20. Mr. Suraj Gupte, learned AGP waives notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Mr. G. D. Talreja, learned counsel assisting Mr. Girish Godbole, learned senior counsel, waives notice of behalf of the Respondent No.5. Court notice be issued to the remaining Respondents. 21. Petitioners to furnish copies of the Writ Petition to the Registry for issuance of notice. 22. We make it clear that the election of the society scheduled on 22 nd December, 2025 shall be subject to the final order which may be passed in the Writ Petition. 23. Stand over to 27 th January, 2026.