(A.B. Chaudhari, J.)

1. A common judgment and order dated 25.6.2012 in Writ Petition Nos.2490/2012 and 2491/2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, is under challenge in these two letters patent appeals.

2. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals made the following submissions.

(A) The members of the Managing Committee of respondent no.4 -Co-operative Society are 13 from the elected category and 2 from the nominated category and thus, the strength of the Committee is 15. The motion of no confidence was passed against the appellants with 9 votes. According to Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellant in both appeals, it is an admitted fact that the notice of motion of no confidence was given to only 13 elected members of the Committee and the 2 nominated members, namely one from a District Central Cooperative Bank and the other, namely the representative of District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies were not at all noticed of the said meeting of motion of no confidence. Consequently, those two members could not attend the meeting. Advocate Shri Patil continued to argue that those two nominated members of the Committee had right to participate in the meeting of motion of no confidence in terms of Rule 57A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short ‘the Rules of 1961’) though they may not have right to vote in such meeting. Due to this default, the very motion of no confidence stands vitiated and becomes illegal. He relied on the decisions in the case of (i) Jayprakashs/o Raosaheb Salunke and others...Versus...The State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 2000 Bombay 461 (ii) RanjitSinh V. Patil and others...Versus...Collector, Kolhapur and others, reported in 2004 (3) Mh.L.J. 642,

(iii) GajananNarayan Patil and others...Versus...Dattatraya Waman Patil and others, reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1023 and (iv) RaeesAhmad...Versus...State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 583 and further argued that the learned Single Judge did not consider this important legal aspect which has resulted into miscarriage of justice to the appellants.

(B) The ground for proposing motion of no confidence against the appellants is as vague as it could be and therefore, on such a vague ground, the meeting for motion of no confidence could not have been held and if held has become illegal. He relied on the decision in the case of

(a) Laxman...Versus...Gram Panchayat, Mangladevi, (Note 102), reported in 1965 Mh.L.J. 50 and

(b) GaneshsinhaDomansinha Hajari..Vrs..Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others, reported in 1963 Mh.L.J. 569.

(C) The list of the total members of the Committee submitted along with the requisition shows only 13 members of Managing Committee, who were elected and not the two nominated members in addition who were the members of the Managing Committee and therefore, the said notice as well as meeting both are illegal.

3. Per contra, Smt. Dangre, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Advocate Shri Ghare for respondent nos.6 to 8 opposed the appeal and argued that the two nominated members of the Committee spoken of by the learned Counsel for the appellants in fact are not the members of the Managing Committee as sought to be canvassed. Inviting our attention to bye-law no.16, the learned Counsel argued that opening words of the bye-law show that there are only 13 members of the Managing Committee and not 15 as alleged. The other two are merely representatives of the District Co-operative Bank and the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies respectively. Therefore, there are only 13 members of the Managing Committee and not 15 as argued. The provisions of Section 73-ID of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act of 1960’) and Rule 57 of the Rules of 1961, if read together, will show that the provisions of Section 73-ID of the Act of 1960 must pr