The automatic disqualification under section 61 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act upon violation of section 72 and the acknowledgment of disqualification by the Assistant Registrar without the need for a separate disqualification order.

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - Petitioner Nagesh Mukund Shet Daivajna is one of the eleven directors of the respondent no.11-Society. On 10/1/2020, the first respondent wanted all the directors to show cause why they should not be disqualified under section 61 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act. The disqualification is said to be for their violating section 72 of the Act. To be specific, the Board of Directors has not held the Annual General Body Meetings (AGMs) for the years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 within the stipulated time; no audit reports have been submitted on time during these three years.

2. On 23 January 2020, on the date of hearing, all the directors, except Nagesh, appeared before the Assistant Registrar and orally submitted their response to the show cause notice. Nagesh absented himself on account of his illness. After taking note of Nagesh's absence, the Assistant Registrar considered the response of the other Directors, including the Chairman, and passed an order on 24/1/2020, disqualifying all the directors.

3. To be precise, the first respondent assessed the statutory impact of the alleged default committed by the Board of Directors because section 61 of the Act provides for deemed disqualification. Aggrieved, Nagesh and other Directors have approached the Goa Co-operative Tribunal. Later, they realized that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, so they withdrew the appeal. Nagesh has filed this writ petition, whereas the other Directors filed Writ Petition No.108/2021. With the consent of the counsel for the respective parties, I have taken up both the writ petitions for disposal.

Writ Petition No. 108 of 2021

4. In this Writ Petition, the facts are identical with those in Writ Petition No.5/2021. The only difference is that the other directors of the Board than Nagesh have filed this Writ Petition.

Submissions:

Petitioners:

5. Shri A. D. Bhobe, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5/2021, has taken me through the statutory provisions; especially section 61 and section 72 of the Act and Rule 49 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003. To begin with, Shri Bhobe has contended that the impugned order suffers from the vice of violating the principles of natural justice. The Assistant Registrar, according to Shri Bhobe, has not given sufficient opportunity to Nagesh, whose illness that authority duly recorded in the order. So, this Court may remand the matter for fresh adjudication because Nagesh has never had an opportunity of placing his defence on record.

6. Then adverting to the merits, Shri Bhobe has submitted that on neither count is there any violation. To elaborate, he has submitted that the Board of Directors did conduct the AGMs on time, for the years 2016-2017 and 2017- 2018. To that extent, he stresses that there is no dispute. The AGM for the year 2018-2019 was held on 3/11/2019, instead of before September of that year. On this count, Shri Bhobe points out that even section 72 of the Act mandates that the AGM should be held as the byelaws determine. Then, he has drawn my attention to byelaw 20, according to which the Society must hold its AGM in nine months.

7. But Shri Bhobe has fairly submitted that in 2014, section 72 underwent an amendment, and the period of nine months was reduced to that of six months. The corresponding Rule, that is Rule 49 of the Rules, as well as the byelaws have remained unchanged. Therefore, until the Rule has been statutorily amended and the corresponding byelaw has been altered, the Assistant Registrar ought to have taken the maximum period as nine months, rather than six months.

8. As to the Society's failure to have the audit reports placed before the AGM on time, Shri Bhobe submits that for the first two years, the Board of Directors appointed one Mr. V. Naik to conduct the audit, as he was one of the empaneled auditors. But because of his illness, the auditor could not complete the task. He also points out that even the auditor appoi