The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute regarding expulsion of a member from a co-operative society falls under section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and the Registrar has the authority to approve or disapprove the resolution of expulsion.

Headnote:
Co-operative Society - Expulsion of Member - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 35 - The court discussed the validity of the resolution of expulsion passed by the society against a member and concluded that the dispute regarding expulsion is maintainable under section 35 of the Act, and not under section 91. The Registrar has the authority to approve or disapprove the resolution of expulsion, and the aggrieved party is entitled to appeal against the decision of the Registrar under section 152.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a co-operative housing society, expelled respondent No. 1 from membership and cancelled the plot allotment due to non-payment of charges. The respondent challenged the expulsion resolution before the Co-operative Court, which was later set aside by the Appellate Court. The petitioner filed a writ petition against the decision of the Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dispute regarding expulsion falls under section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and not under section 91. The impugned order of the lower Appellate Authority was set aside, allowing the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the dispute regarding expulsion of a member from a co-operative society falls under section 91 or section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute regarding expulsion is maintainable under section 35 of the Act, and the Registrar has the authority to approve or disapprove the resolution of expulsion. The aggrieved party is entitled to appeal against the decision of the Registrar under section 152.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. No order as to costs.

JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:---Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mardikar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is a Housing Society and is sub-classified as "Tenant Co-partnership Co-operative Housing Society". There are in all 106 members. The society purchased the land for allotment of plots to its members. The respondent No. 1 was admitted as a Member of the Society and one plot was allotted to him. As per the resolutions passed by the General Meetings as well as Managing Committee Meetings of the Society, every member had to pay development charges, maintenance charges, Nazul taxes etc., to the society.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Society accordingly made demands by issuing notices to the respondent No. 1. However, the respondent No. 1 failed to make requisite payment though several opportunities were given to him for this purpose and, therefore, in the General Body meeting of the society held on 16-12-1990, a resolution was passed by the society whereby the allotment of plot made in favour of respondent No. 1 was cancelled as well as respondent No. 1 was expelled from the membership of the society. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the action of the petitioner-society, filed a dispute bearing No. 198 of 1992 before the Co-operative Court, Amravati, challenging the resolution of his explusion and sought a declaration that he is a member and the said resolution is null and void.

4. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on 8-8-2000, the Co-operative Court dismissed the dispute mainly on the ground that such dispute does not fall within the scope of section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Co-operative Court, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Nagpur. The Appellate Court heard the appeal and vide judgment, dated 31-8-2001, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Co-operative Court, dated 8-8-2000. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court in case of (K.V. Sundaram and another v. Raj Rajeshwari Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.)1, 1980 Mh.L.J. 4 considered this aspect and finally held that the issue, in question, does not fall within the ambit of section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act and the remedy to challenge the resolution of expulsion is to be followed as per the manner provided by section 35 and the further provisions relating to appeal and revision. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the impugned order passed by the lower Appellate Authority is bad in law and may be set aside.

6. Mr. Mardikar, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, contended that in the General Body meeting of the Society, which was held on 16-12-1990, the question of expulsion of respondent No. 1 was not on the agenda of the meeting and, therefore, the same could not have been considered by the General Body on that day before informing the petitioner in respect of the same and, therefore, the petitioner did not have a notice in this regard. The learned Counsel further contended that the respondent No. 1, therefore, approached the Co-operative Court under section 91 and challenged the resolution, dated 16-12-1990, passed by the petitioner-society. Mr. Mardikar further contended that the procedure, which is adopted for the purpose of expulsion by the society in view of the above referred facts, is not proper. The same is violative of the principles of natural justice and, therefore

Click Here to Read the rest of this document