The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty to disclose material relied upon in adjudication and the need for individual consideration of facts in disputes regarding eligibility, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and fair proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.

Civil Appeal Nos 88-89 of 2023

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from a judgment dated 22 September 2022 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

3. The ninth respondent, Shri Chhatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, is a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960. The society has its own bye-laws and is engaged primarily in the production of sugar. The jurisdiction of the cooperative society extends to 122 villages in seven talukas of District Kolhapur and it has 17,173 cultivator members.

4. Bye-law 17-A prescribes the requirements for being a ‘producer member’ of the society. The bye-law stipulates that a member should (i) have attained the age of 18 years; (ii) be an occupier of land within the jurisdiction of the society/factory as owner or tenant; and (iii) cultivate sugarcane in a minimum area of 10 gunthas of land.

5. In 2019, complaints were filed by respondents 3 to 8 while invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960. The complaints which were addressed to the Registrar, sought the removal of approximately 2000 members on the ground that they did not fulfill the conditions of eligibility.

6. On 3 January 2020, the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) addressed a communication to the cooperative society adverting to the fact that the complainants had alleged that the members whose names were set out in a list of members attached as ‘Annexure A’ were, as the case may be, not residing in the jurisdiction of the factory; not holding ten gunthas of land; and did not fulfill the requirements of eligibility in terms of the bye-laws. The notice to show cause also adverted to the fact that writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in which an order had been passed on 20 December 2019 directing the Regional Joint Director to conclude the enquiry by 15 February 2020.

7. The cooperative society, upon receipt of the notice from the Regional Joint Director, forwarded a copy to all the members whose eligibility was sought to be disputed. The allegations in the notice to show cause were disputed by at least some of the members. The members disputed the allegation that they were not eligible in terms of the bye-laws and sought an opportunity to produce evidence in support of their eligibility.

8. On 14 February 2020, the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) held that the members whose names were set out in Annexure B to Annexure B-6 were disqualified from being members of the society. The breakup of these members is as follows:

(i) 59 members did not hold the minimum area of agricultural land within the jurisdiction of the factory;

(ii) 709 members did not hold agricultural land within the jurisdiction of the factory;

(iii) 205 members held land on the basis of usufructuary mortgages for which there was no entry in the revenue records;

(iv) 33 members were dead, requiring the deletion of their names;

(v) 69 members were found to have been recorded more than once;

(vi) The shareholding of 2 members stood cancelled; and

(vii) The factory had consented to the deletion of 338 members. A total of 1415 members comprised in Annexures B to B-6 to the order were directed to be deleted. 484 members (Annexures A and A-1) were found to meet the conditions of eligibility.

9. An appeal against the order of the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 was dismissed on 18 February 2021 by the Minister of Cooperation.

10. This led to the institution of writ petitions before the High Court. The Single Judge rejected the Writ Petitions by the impugned judgment and order dated 22 September 2022. The Single Judge has observed that there was no controversy on factual aspects and dealt with the submission that the Registrar had no jurisdiction under Section 11 to enquire into whether a member stood disqualified after the formation