The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of statutory provisions for fixing the time limit for adjourned meetings precluded the disqualification of the petitioners under section 75(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

( 1 ) HEARD advocates for the petitioners and respective respondents. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :- respondent No. 1 is the Co-op. Housing Society. Petitioner No. 1 was the chairman and petitioner No. 2 was the secretary of the society. They were legally bound to convene General Body Meeting, therefore, they called General Body meeting of respondent No. I/society for the year 2000-01 on 4-8-2001. Accordingly, the meeting was held on that day. Subject on the Agenda was discussed but the meeting could not proceed further because of chaotic condition or situation created by some members and, therefore, the meeting was called off. Two letters thereafter were sent by the petitioners to respondent No. 2 to depute somebody so that meeting could be successfully or peacefully held. But no steps were taken by respondent No. 2. Thereafter the meeting was called by the petitioners on 10-11-2001. All the remaining subjects were discussed on that day.

( 2 ) HOWEVER, thereafter respondent No. 2 initiated action against the petitioners under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and they disqualified under section 75 (5) of the Act for not holding the meeting within stipulated period. The petitioners challenged this order before the Divisional Joint Registrar. But they were not successful. They went to the Minister. There also the order was against them and, hence this petition.

( 3 ) THE counsel for the petitioners contended that as required by this Act, it was legal responsibility of the petitioners to convene a meeting before statutory period. General Body Meeting was, therefore, called by the petitioners on 4-8- 2001 and, there is no grievance of any of the party in that regard, nor action taken is in respect of that meeting. However, on that day only one subject could be discussed and then the meeting was disturbed and it had to be called off. Thereafter subsequent meeting was held on 10-11-2001. In the meantime the petitioners had written letters to respondent No. 2 to intervene the matter and to send a representative so that the meeting could be held peacefully. Then accordingly the meeting was held on that day and all the subjects were discussed and the meeting was concluded.

( 4 ) THEREFORE, in this background of the matter, the petitioners contended that the order disqualifying the petitioners as passed by respondent No. 2 and confirmed by subsequent two authorities was illegal and it was liable to be set aside. My attention was drawn in this regard to the section 75 (5); section 78, rule 60 (8) and certain Authorities by both the advocates. No other provision of the Act was quoted, cited or relied upon and, therefore, it has to be seen, whether the order of disqualification was just, proper and legal.

( 5 ) SECTION 75 of the Act is about Annual General Meeting. Sub-section (1) of section 75 provides that; "every society, shall within a period of three months next after the date fixed for making up its accounts for the year under the rules for the time being in force, call a general meeting of its members," sub-section (5) lays down that, "if default is made, in calling a general meeting within the period or, as the case may be, extended period, prescribed under sub-section (1), or in complying with sub-section (2), (3) or (4), the Registrar may by order, declare any officer of member of the committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and who without reasonable excuse failed to comply with any of the aforesaid sub- sections disqualified for being elected and for being any officer or member of the committee for such period not exceeding three years. . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 6 ) SECTION 78 of the Act gives Power of removal of committee or member thereof to the Registrar. It lays down that if, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee of any society or any member of such committee makes default, or is negligent in the performan