The main legal point established in the judgment is that the second revision under section 154 of the M.C.S. Act is not maintainable, and there is no limitation imposed by law on parties applying for a declaration of membership under section 22(2) of the M.C.S. Act.

JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.: - By the present petition the petitioner society seeks to impugn the order dated 30th March, 1998 and 19th March, 2002 passed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 2 respectively being Exhibit "F" and "H" to the petition.

2. A few facts may be set out. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had filed appeals before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It was the case of the said respondents that they has applied for membership of the society. The respondents were informed by the petitioners by letter dated 16th November, 1988 and 20th November, 1988 that their application for membership is under consideration and legal opinion was sought for by the society. A request was also made to forward the original agreements, it was the case of the respondents that the petitioners did not communicate their acceptance within the stipulated period of three months from the date of receipt of the application and consequently they are deemed members of the petitioner society under section 22(2) of the M.C.S. Act. The petitioners by letter of May, 1989 intimated the respondents that their application for membership has been rejected. In the appeal it was the case of the respondents that the rejection has no consequence and consequently they were entitled to be treated as deemed members. The application/appeal was preferred some time in the year 1997. The Deputy Registrar, however, by the impugned order of 30th March, 1998 was pleased to allow the appeal and issued a declaration that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are declared as deemed members of the petitioner society.

3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision before the 3rd respondents against the order passed in both the appeals. The 3rd respondent on consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was pleased to hold that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had filed appeal after a long delay and that the reasons for the delay could not be accepted. The 3rd respondent also held that the order rejecting the application for membership was communicated to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by letter dated 20th May, 1989. The respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were fully aware of the rejection and inspite of that they did not take out any proceedings. They has relied on provisions of section 22(2) which came into effect on 2nd January, 1997 and had filed appeal claiming deemed membership. The third respondent also held that the 4th respondent has not taken into consideration the correspondence exchanged between the parties and consequently the contention of non-communication of the decision was not proper and justified and accordingly allowed the Revision Application.

4. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred Revision Applications before the State Government which came to be allowed by order dated 19th March, 2002. In exercise of the powers of revision the State Government held relying on the judgment of this Court that if a Co-operative Society did not take decision on the membership application of any eligible member within three months then the said person becomes deemed member of the society. In the instant case the petitioners did not take any decision on the membership application of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 within three months nor had the petitioners presented any evidence that the respondents No. 5 and 6 are unfit to become member of the society according to the Bye-laws. Accordingly the 2nd respondent allowed the Revision Applications.

5. At the outset it may be mentioned that the petitioners in respect of admitting respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as members in the matter of change of user of the premises have preferred a petition which has been dismissed. An appeal has been preferred which is admitted and pending before the Court. It is no doubt true that the learned Counsel pointed out that decision on that point would have an important bearing on the issue

Click Here to Read the rest of this document