A Motion of No Confidence against a member of the Managing Committee must be considered and voted on by the Managing Committee itself, not by the Electoral College.

JUDGMENT :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties.

2. The respondent Nos.6 and 7, have filed a pursis on record dated 12/08/2024, in terms of which, it has been stated that they do not wish to contest the claim of the present petitioners and want their names to be deleted from the array of respondents, on account of which none appears for them.

3. Writ Petition No.1568/2024 challenges the minutes of the special meeting dated 04/01/2024 (pg.138), in which the Motion of No Confidence raised in pursuance to a requisition given by the committee members has been passed and the petitioners have been removed as members of the Managing Committee on that count. It is also necessary to note that challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as raised in this petition, the same was given up, which stands recorded in the order dated 06/08/2024.

4. Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, learned Counsel for the petitioners invites our attention to the provisions of Section 73-1D (1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “MCS Act”), the language of which, according to him, would dis-entitle the Managing Committee from considering such a Motion of No Confidence. According to learned Senior Counsel, such a motion can only be considered by the electoral College, which has elected the petitioners to the Managing Committee and not otherwise. He specifically relies upon the phrase “who are entitled to vote at the election of such officer” occurring in Section 73-1D (1) of the MCS Act. He further submits, that such an argument is supported by the language of Rule 57-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “MCS Rules”), which relates to Motion of No Confidence against the officers of the society. The learned Senior Counsel further submits, that since the election to the Managing Committee is from different constituencies, it is only that constituency which has elected a person to the Managing Committee, which would have the authority to consider the Motion of No Confidence and none other, for which purpose he relies upon the declaration dated 07/07/2022 issued by the Election Office (pg. 32), which according to him, demonstrates that the petitioners have been elected to the Managing Committee from different constituencies as indicated therein, the names of the petitioners being at Sr. Nos.4, 7, 9, 18 and 19. The learned Senior Counsel also relies upon the definition of “Committee” as occurring in Section 2(7) of the MCS Act in support of his contention. He further submits, that since the election of a person to the Managing Committee is by a particular constituency, to contend that such a person can be removed only by the Managing Committee members, by way of requisition, would not only be absurd but would negate the will of the constituency, which had elected him to the said post. There are 21 members in the Managing Committee as against which there are total 8174 members of the society, all of whom, vote to elect a person to the Managing Committee based upon the constituency which are either open or reserved. It is, therefore, contended relying upon Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary Vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and others, (2015) 8 SCC 1, paras 16, 18 to 20, that the Motion of No Confidence, which has been passed by the Managing Committee, in fact, is legally infirm and cannot be sustained.

5. In Writ Petition No.1437/2024, Mr. M.V. Samarth, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits, that the notice of No Confidence Motion which was moved by 14 out 21 Managing Committee members, has been rejected to be put to vote by the Divisional Joint Registrar-respondent No.1 by the order dated 20/2/2024 (pg.41), on the ground that, it ought to have been mo