The main legal point established in the judgment is the likelihood of conflict between the duties of a Director on the Board of a Co-operative Society and the pecuniary interest of the individual, and the court's emphasis on upholding the disqualification based on the potential conflict between interest and duty.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Deepak Gaonkar for the Petitioner and Mr. Manish Salkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents.

2. The challenge in this Petition is mainly to the order dated 10th January 2019, made by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bicholim, disqualifying the Petitioner to continue as the Director on the Board of Directors of Sattari Taluka Farmers Service Co-operative Society Ltd. (Society), by invoking the provisions of Section 60(i)(e) and Section 59(11) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (said Act).

3. The Petitioner, by amending the Petition has also challenged the inquiry report dated 15th May 2018 submitted by the Senior Auditor/Inspector, which report has been taken into consideration by the Assistant Registrar whilst making the impugned order dated 10th January 2019.

4. Mr. Gaonkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submits that the impugned order dated 10th January 2019 is in breach of the principles of natural justice because the Petitioner was not heard by the Assistant Registrar before making the impugned order. He submitted that the impugned order incorrectly states that the Petitioner was heard and even proceeds to record certain submissions allegedly made by the Petitioner when, in fact, an oral hearing was given to the Petitioner. He submits that the provisions of Section 59(11) of the said Act specifically contemplate grant of an opportunity of being heard before any order is made to disqualify the Directors of the Society. He submits that on this ground alone, the impugned order dated 10th January 2019 is required to be set aside.

5. Mr. Gaonkar submits that in any case, the material on record does not establish that the Petitioner was either a salaried employee of the Society or holding any office of profit under the Society. He submits that the record, at the highest, indicates that the Petitioner appeared as an Advocate on behalf of the Society, but, further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner earned any profits on account of such appearances on behalf of the Society. He submits that the record indicates that it is the Society which was profited by the appearance of the Petitioner on his behalf. He submits that the record indicates that on account of the services rendered by the Petitioner, the Society was able to recover amounts from the defaulting borrowers. He submits that even the most reasonable fees charged by the Petitioner were not directly paid by the Society, but debited from the loan accounts of the defaulting borrowers in terms of the prevailing contracts or trend. For all these reasons, Mr. Gaonkar submits that the provisions of Section 60(i)(e) of the said Act were not at all attracted and the disqualification based thereon is ex facie null and void.

6. Mr. Gaonkar submits that the inquiry report dated 15th May 2018 is itself incorrect and, based on the same, no action should have been taken under Section 59(11) of the said Act. In any case, he submits that the report does not record any categorical findings of discrepancies in the working of the Society or the Petitioner indulged in any irregular, illegal acts detrimental to the interest of the Society. For all these reasons, Mr. Gaonkar submits that the impugned order dated 10th January 2019 is liable to be set aside.

7. Mr. Gaonkar relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna and ors. vs. Janakdhari Prasad and ors, (2018) 8 SCC 1 to point out that a candidate holding the post of Assistant Government Advocate in the panel of Assistant Government Advocates, was not disqualified for contesting the elections under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. He submits that based upon the ratio of this decision, the disqualification of the Petitioner is also liable to be set aside.

8. Finally, Mr. Gaonkar submits that the General Body of the Society has itself passed a resolution rejecting the proposal f