The main legal point established in the judgment is that the removal of a member from a cooperative society must adhere to the principles of natural justice and require specific allegations, and the government has the authority to review such decisions.

VENKATA RAMAIYA, J.

( 1 ) THE order which the petitioner wants to be quashed by this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relates to his removal from the membership of the bangalore City Co-operative Bank, Ltd. , Bangalore. The petitioner became a member of the said Bank about 15 years back and in his zeal to promote the interests of the Bank questioned from time to time the propriety of the acts of the Directors in managing the affairs of the Bank and subjected them to proceedings under the Cooperative societies Act before the Registrar and his Assistants. The remission by the Directors of portions of the debts due by one Sri Kodandaramaiah and some others was an instance of this kind. His objection to the remission was upheld by the Assistant to the Registrar as well as the Registrar and finally by the Government. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a notice stating that a special General Body Meeting would be convened at the request of certain members of the Bank to consider firstly the question of the remission and secondly removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Bank. The petitioner again filed a petition before the Assistant Registrar objecting to these. In the course of those proceedings the then Secretary, Mr. B. Rangaswamy, stated on behalf of the Bank:

"that he would acquaint the General Body that the said proposition need not be moved since Sri b. Krishnappa is working in the interest of the Bank. The petitioner said that excepting Sri kodandaramaiah's case in proposition No. 1, he will not press the other items. "

The aforesaid statements bear the signatures of the petitioner and Mr. B. Rangaswamy on 20-9-1949. The Personal Assistant to the Registrar on the same day made an order to the following effect:

"in the circumstances the petition is dismissed. Separate orders will issue as regards the discussion of the subject relating to the write off of the amount due by Sri Kodandaramaiah. "

In spite of this, however, the meeting did go on and by a majority of the members present at the meeting a resolution for removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Bank was passed on 25th September 1949. The Personal Assistant to the Registrar and the Registrar held that the resolution was not proper but on an application filed by the Bank for revision of these orders, the government approved of the removal in its order dated 18-6-1952 and this is impugned before us.

( 2 ) THE petitioner who argued the case himself with the facility and force of one accustomed to it, attacked the order firstly on the ground that it offends the rule of 'res judicata'; secondly that the application which led to it was not maintainable, thirdly that it was obtained on malicious ex parte representations and lastly that it is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. The plea of 'res judicata' rests on construction placed on the order passed by the Government negativing the resolution of the Bank for remission of any portion of Kodandaramaiah's debt as also a decision in favour of the petitioner concerning his removal. The proceedings in which the question of remission was considered were treated as separate from those about the petitioner's removal and the finding arrived at in the latter was mentioned only as a fact in the other case. As the question of removal was not in issue in the other case and referred to as being dealt with separately the rule of 'res judicata' can have no application to the order in question. The order cannot be held to be defective on the-ground that no appeal was filed under Section 62, Co-operative Societies Act, as appeal lies only when there is a point of law, as Section 59 of the Act, which is wider in scope than Section 62 enables Government to call for and examine either of its own accord or at the instance of the aggrieved party, the correctness, legality or otherwise of any order under the Act. The Government, therefore, has ju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document