Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT GOA BENCH
C.V. BHADANG, J.
P.N. Halshikar & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Goa & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 20 & 58 of 2014
Decided On : 11-10-2017
For the Petitioners:Devidas J. Pangam, Luis Fernandes, Advocates
For the Respondents:Pravin Phaldessai, Additional Government Advocate, Gaurish Agni, Eeshan Usapkar, Advocates
Non-compliance with statutory obligations regarding AGM and managing committee disqualification under Section 61(a) of the Co-operative Societies Act.
Headnote:
Co-operative Societies Act - Disqualification of Managing Committee Members - Section 61(a), Section 72 - The judgment discusses the disqualification of managing committee members under Section 61(a) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, due to failure to conduct the annual general meeting (AGM) within the stipulated time. It also highlights the obligations under Section 72 regarding the frequency and timing of meetings, and the consequences of non-compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The managing committee of a Co-operative Society failed to conduct AGM for two consecutive years, leading to disqualification under Section 61(a) of the Act. Disputes between committee members resulted in a standstill of the Society's affairs, prompting the Registrar to order the constitution of a new Board of Directors.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the managing committee had indeed failed to comply with the statutory provisions of the Act, leading to their disqualification. It also noted the standstill in the Society's affairs due to internal disputes.
Issues: Non-compliance with AGM requirements, Disqualification of managing committee members, Appointment of new Board of Directors
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 61(a) and Section 72 of the Act to determine the disqualification of managing committee members and the obligations regarding AGM. It emphasized the need to streamline the Society's affairs in the face of prolonged standstill.
Final Decision: The impugned order was modified to deem the petitioners disqualified under Section 61(a) of the Act from a specified date. The Registrar was directed to take immediate steps for the constitution of a new Board of Directors.
1. Both these petitions are between the same parties and involve common and connected questions of law and fact and as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions may be stated thus:
That, MES Employees Consumer Co-operative Society (Society, for short) is a Society registered under the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Act, for short). As per the Constitution and bye laws of the Society, the managing committee of the Society consists of nine members. The managing committee comprising of nine members was elected on 21.01.2009, for a period of five years i.e. from 21.01.2009 to 20.01.2014. Unfortunately, disputes and differences arose between the members of the managing committee. The members of the managing committee are divided into two groups. The first group consists of six members, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 20/2014 (hereinafter referred to as party no. 1), while the other group consists of three members, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 58/2014 (hereinafter referred to as party no. 2). These petitions are a result of simmering disputes between the two groups, which has led all the members of the managing committee being disqualified under Section 61(a) of the Act.
3. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the petitions can be disposed of on a short ground, where it may not be necessary to set out the facts in details. Suffice it to mention that a complaint was filed by the party no. 2 with the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, South Zone, Margao, alleging certain illegalities being committed by the party no. 1. In pursuance to the said complaint, an inquiry was conducted by the Junior Auditor/Inspector, in which it was found that the last meeting of the managing committee was held somewhere in the month of February 2010 and thereafter, from March 2010 to July, 2011, no managing committee meetings were held. It was also found that the managing committee had failed to conduct the Annual General Meeting (AGM) for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 as required by Section 72 of the Act. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies therefore issued a show cause notice dated 17.01.2013 to the members of the managing committee asking them to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them in terms of Section 71 of the Act.
4. Both, party no. 1 and party no. 2 filed their replies, continuing with their spree of making allegations and counter allegations against each other.
5. According to the party no. 1, the party no. 2 was refusing to attend the managing committee meeting and had filed a dispute before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, challenging the earlier AGM held on 14.10.2009. The said dispute was referred to the Registrar's Nominee, who by an order dated 02.09.2010, declared the AGM held on 14.10.2009 to be null and void. The party no. 2 challenged the same before the Co-operative Tribunal in Co-operative Appeal No. 16/2010 (Tribunal, for short). The learned Tribunal by judgment and order dated 23.08.2011, allowed the appeal and set aside the award of the Registrar's Nominee, thus, in effect restoring the validity of the meeting dated 14.10.2009. That has in turn been challenged by the party no. 2 before this Court in Writ Petition No. 610/2011. It was contended that the managing committee of the Society had convened an AGM on 19.09.2011 for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, however, the party no. 2 preferred to remain absent and since, there was no quorum, the party no. 1 decided to call the meeting on 17.10.2011. The next AGM for 2011-12 was convened on 10.10.2012, however again, the party no. 2 remained absent and as there was no quorum, the AGM was called on 18.12.2012, in which some amendments to the bye laws were approved.
6. The party no. 2 contended that in the managing committee meeting held on 20.04.2009, it was unanimously resolved to hold th
