The legal heirs of a deceased member are entitled to the transfer of shares as provided under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the society is bound to comply with the mandate of transfer.

JUDGMENT

G. A. Sanap, J. - The learned Single Judge by order dated 09.06.2009 decided the Writ Petition No. 4302 of 2008, filed by the appellant and Writ Petition No. 3088 of 2008, filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 15, against the order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nagpur. The Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nagpur had allowed the application made by the respondent Nos. 4 to 15 and directed the appellant-Bank to grant membership to the respondent Nos. 4 to 15 being the nominees of late Shri Shankarlal Agrawal. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-Bank and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 15 and directed the appellant-Bank to transfer the shares and grant membership to the respondent Nos. 4 to 15, subject to provisions of Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "MCS Act) and Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "MCS Rules). The appellant-Bank has challenged the Judgment of the learned single Judge in this Letters Patent Appeal.

2] The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

Deceased - Shankarlal Agrawal was share holder/ member of the appellant-Bank and was holding 20 shares. He expired on 03.09.2005. Before his death, by letter dated 04.11.2003, he had nominated respondent Nos.4 to 15 and informed the appellant-Bank to transfer his shares in the name of the respondent Nos. 4 to 15 after his death. The respondent Nos. 4 to 15, after his death made an application to the Chairman of the appellant-Bank for transfer of the shares to their names, in view of the family arrangement arrived at between them. It was the case of the respondent Nos. 4 to 15 that the appellant-Bank did not take cognizance of their application, made under Section 30 of the MCS Act, for transfer of shares. The appellant-Bank rejected the said application without mentioning the valid reasons. The respondent Nos. 4 to 15 on rejection of their application, by the Bank, made an application before the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nagpur and prayed for transfer of the shares held by Shankarlal Agrawal to their names. The said application was allowed vide order dated 10.09.2007 by the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nagpur.

3] The appellant-Bank opposed the said application by raising multiple grounds. According to the appellant, the application was not maintainable under Section 30 of the MCS Act. The appellant-Bank had an imperative right to take decision in the matter. Accordingly, the appellant-Bank took a decision to return Rs.500/- being the price of the share to the respondent Nos.4 to 15. It is further contended that the appellant-Bank was required to take this decision in view of the directions of Reserve Bank of India. According to the appellant-Bank, the Reserve Bank of India had directed the Co-operative Societies to discourage the individual membership of the Central Financing Agencies like District Central Co-operative Banks. The Banks were directed to reduce the membership by redeeming shares of the existing individual member wherever possible and not to admit new individual membership in the Bank. The decision was taken in this case consistent with this policy, on 31.03.2007, to refund the value of the shares to the respondent Nos. 4 to 15.

4] The Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nagpur allowed the application made by the respondent Nos. 4 to 15. However, there was no specific direction for transfer of shares. The respondent Nos.4 to 15 felt aggrieved by the said order. The appellant-Bank also felt aggrieved by the order of partly granting the application. Therefore, the above writ petitions were filed by both the parties. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-Bank and allowed the writ petition f