Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 472
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.
Kamadhenu Sahakari Grahanirman Sanstha Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Suresh And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3352 of 2001
Decided On : 12-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Madhav Ghode h/f Mr. P. K. Joshi, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Mr. N. D. Raje, AGP.
IMPORTANT POINT
The expulsion of a member from a co-operative society must adhere strictly to the procedural requirements set forth in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and any failure to comply with these requirements invalidates the expulsion.
Headnote:
EXPULSION - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 35, Rules 28 and 29 - The court discussed the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, particularly Section 35 regarding the expulsion of members, which requires a majority resolution and an opportunity for the member to represent their case. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 29, which stipulates the procedure for expulsion, including the requirement for advance notice and a minimum one-month period for the member to respond. The failure to adhere to these provisions influenced the court's decision to uphold the appellate authority's ruling that the expulsion was invalid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Co-operative Housing Society, sought to expel respondent no.1 for non-payment of development expenses as per a resolution passed in a general body meeting. The expulsion was confirmed by the Taluka Deputy Registrar but was later overturned by the Appellate Authority, which found that the proper procedures under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 had not been followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner-Society did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 29 regarding the expulsion process, specifically the lack of advance notice to the member about the expulsion agenda. The appellate authority's decision to set aside the expulsion was justified.
Issues: Whether the expulsion of respondent no.1 from the Society was valid under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the associated rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Society's failure to provide the required notice and opportunity for the member to defend against the expulsion rendered the resolution invalid. The mandatory nature of the procedural requirements under the Act and Rules was emphasized, and any deviation from these requirements was deemed fatal to the expulsion process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the appellate authority's decision to overturn the expulsion of respondent no.1.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner impugns the judgment and order dated 12.08.1998 passed by the Joint Additional Registrar, Co-operative Society, Aurangabad in Appeal No.80/1997 as well as order dated 18.07.2001 passed by the Secretary, Co-operation Department, Government of Maharashtra in Revision Petition No.96/1999.
3. The petitioner is Co-operative Housing Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'MCS Act, 1960'). The respondent no.1 was its member. The general body meeting of the Society was held on 08.12.1991, wherein it was decided that each member should contribute Rs.12,000/- towards development expenses of the Society. The respondent no.1 was present in the meeting. Neither, he deposit the amount as per resolution nor had he made application for extension of time. On 11.07.1993, the general body meeting of the Society was convened. The respondent no.1 was served with the notice of meeting. However, he deliberately remained absent at meeting. Hence, Resolution was passed on 11.07.1993 to expel him from membership on the count of his non-cooperation. The decision of the Society was referred to Taluka Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Aurangabad for confirmation. On 11.08.1994, said Authority confirmed and upheld the decision of expulsion of respondent no.1. Aggrieved by the said decision, respondent no.1 filed Appeal under Section 152 of the MCS Act, 1960 before respondent no.2-Joint Additional Registrar, Co-operative Society, Aurangabad. The said Appeal came to be allowed. Then aggrieved petitioner-Society filed Revision before state, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.07.2001. Consequently, Taluka Registrar, Co-operative Society issued communication dated 01.08.2001 to implement the decision of respondent no.2 dated 12.08.1998. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner-Society has filed present Writ Petition.
4. Mr. Ghode, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that in general body meeting dated 08.12.1991, the decision was taken to contribute Rs.12,000/- per member towards development expenses of the Society. The respondent no.1 was party to such Resolution. He failed to make payment and acted contrary to the bye-laws of the Society. He had not made any application for extension of time to deposit the amount. Due to non-cooperation of respondent no.1, the Society passed Resolution dated 11.07.1993 to expel him. The cheque of Rs.7000/- was posted to respondent no.1 against his shares. However, he refused to accept the same. Thereafter, special messenger was sent with a request to accept the cheque. However, respondent no.1 refused to accede the request. Thereafter, petitioner-Society decided to implement the decision of expulsion taken in the meeting dated 11.09.1993. The reference was made to the Competent Authority, who gave sufficient opportunity to respondent no.1 to put up his stand and thereafter, passed the order affirming/upholding the decision of the Society. The Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority failed to appreciate the material on record and conduct of respondent no.1 leading to decision of expulsion, while upsetting the decision of Taluka Deputy Registrar and Resolution of the Society.
5. Per contra, Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 vehemently submits that respondent nos.2 and 3 have recorded elaborate reasons in support of their decisions. The decision of the Society was inconsistent with the statutory provisions contained under MCS Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. Such a decision is rightly set aside by the Appellate Authority and confirmed in the Revision by the Secretary. In support of his contentions he relies upon the judgment of this Court in case of Aderabad Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Di
