IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
Pawankumar Nandkishor Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8109 of 2024
Decided On : 13-06-2024
JUDGMENT :
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
1. Heard, Mr. Swapnil Bangur learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Uday Warunjikar learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. Learned AGP appears for the respondents 1 to 3.
2. The petition questions the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society MHADA/respondent No. 3, whereby, the petitioner has been disqualified as a member of the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 6/Society in exercise of the powers under Section 154 B-23 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (page 27) and the order dated 2/05/2024 (pg.34) in Revision Application No. 251 of 2023 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar/respondent No. 2 by which challenge to the order dated 15/5/2023, has been turned down.
3. The facts leading to the present petition shorn of unnecessary details are that the petitioner was elected as a member to the Managing Committee of respondent No. 6/Society. The election of the petitioner was questioned by respondent Nos.4 and 5 by filing a complaint to respondent No. 3 contending that the petitioner was having more than two children and therefore, in light of the mandate of Section 154 B-23 (v) of the MCS Act, he had incurred a disqualification and therefore was liable to be disqualified. This found favour with respondent No. 3, on the ground, that the petitioner had three children No. 1-Ms. Mahima Pawan Singh born on 19.04.2001, No. 2-Mr. Abhinav Pawan Singh born on 28.09.2009 and Mr. Prabhat Pawan Singh whose name was included in the Ration Card of the petitioner as his son. He also found that the petitioner had one more issue namely Ms. Janhvi born on 31.8.2007. He thus rendered a finding that the petitioner was having more than two children and therefore, he was disqualified in view of the aforesaid provisions. The said order dated 15.5.2023 has been confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar/respondent No. 2.
4. Mr. Swapnil Bangur, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the provisions of Section 154 B (1) of the MCS Act, submits that by virtue of the provisions of Section 154B-1 to B-31 were not made applicable to actions under Chapter XIII-B of the MCS Act and therefore, the respondent No. 3 and Divisional Joint Registrar/respondent No. 2 could not have held the petitioner to be disqualified on the above ground. He further submits that Section 154B(2) excludes Section 73(CA) of the MCS, Act from its applicability to Chapter XIII-B of the MCS, Act on which ground also the findings of disqualification are misconceived. He therefore submits that on this ground the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 is liable to be rejected.
5. The impugned order is supported by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5, by contending that Chapter XIII-B is a provision inserted subsequent in point of time in the MCS Act and therefore, non mention of Sections 154B-1 to 154B-31, in Sec.154 B (1) of the MCS Act, would not have any effect and the arguments in this regard are misconceived. It is also contended that though, Section 154B(2) excludes the applicability of Section 73(CA), the mandate of Section 154 B-23 would be applicable in light of Clause (v) contained therein by which it has been rightly held that the petitioner has incurred disqualification. Learned AGP adopts the above arguments.
6. The relevant provisions of the MCS Act, which fall for consideration are as under:
Section 1, clauses (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (10-ai), (10-aii), (10-aiii), (13), (14), (16), (17), (18), (20-A), (21), (24), (26), (27), (28), (29), (29A) and (31) of section 2, sections 3, 3A, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20A, 21, 21A, 22, sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 23, sections 25, 25A, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, except proviso of sub-section (1) of sec
The court affirmed that disqualification under Section 154 B-23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applies to members with more than two children, validating the lower authorities' decisio....
The court determined that membership restrictions under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act do not bar property ownership by a member and were excluded for housing societies, all....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the by-law no.44(5) was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and the petitioner had alread....
The court established that disqualification of elected members without a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice, necessitating a proper inquiry process before any punitive action can be ....
The court affirmed that repeated failures to comply with statutory duties under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act justify disqualification of the entire Managing Committee to ensure transpar....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 20(1)(c)(i) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007, in determining the disqualification of a mem....
Disqualification under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act requires clear evidence of holding dual designated officer positions, failing which challenges under subsequent provisions may lead to....
Membership in co-operative housing societies cannot be denied without timely communication of the decision, and disputes regarding dues do not preclude admission.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.