The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned notices issued by the Society were valid, as the petitioner failed to fulfill the obligation to undertake construction within the specified time and did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for membership.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner amar Kumar Malick and his sister Pratima Bar were joint allottees of the Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short, 'the Society'). On January 12, 1984, a registered deed of conveyance of a plot of land was executed by the Society in favour of the said joint allottees. On November 23, 2004, the Society issued a 'no objection' certificate in favour of the petitioner and his said sister for grant of mutation of the land in their name by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). On December 8, 2006, a share certificate for twenty shares of the Society was issued in favour of the petitioner and Pratima.

2. The petitioner's sister Pratima, vide registered gift deed dated July 6, 2012, donated her fifty per cent share in the property to the petitioner.

3. Subsequently on March 16, 2020, a show cause notice was issued by the Society to the petitioner and his sister alleging violation of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2006 act') for failure to settle. In the show cause notice, it was alleged, inter alia, that the plot of land was jointly allotted to the petitioner and Pratima on July 3, 1967, which was admitted by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice dated May 15, 2020.

4. Thereafter the petitioner, on March 21, 2020, wrote a letter to the Society for the latter to co-operate in the matter of a building sanction plan which had been submitted 'at present' (at that point of time)bythe petitioner before the KMC.

5. However, vide a written notice dated June 23, 2020, the Society rejected the petitioner's reply dated March 21, 2020 and asked the petitioner to take steps for surrender of membership within seven days from receipt of the notice, indicating further that the Society would be at liberty to allot and/or transfer the plot as per law to a new member without further notice to the petitioner and/or his sister.

6. The present writ petitioner has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated March 16, 2020 and the notice to surrender dated June 23, 2020.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner and his sister were admittedly joint allottees and members of the Society, which is illustrated by several documents like the registered deed of conveyance dated January 12, 1984 by the Society in favour of the petitioner and Pratima, the 'no objection' certificate dated November 23, 2004 issued by the Society for mutation in their name, the share certificate dated December 8, 2006, etc. Such joint membership of shares of a co-operative Society, it is contended, is recognized in Section 63 (4) of the 2006 act.

8. On July 6, 2012, a registered gift deed of Pratima's fifty per cent share was executed in favour of the petitioner. Section 92 of the 2006 act permits such transfer without any special permission from the Society, it is contended. Hence, the petitioner became a member of the Society and allottee in respect of the whole plot of land.

9. The petitioner, who is a fish vendor by occupation, allegedly could not construct a house on the plot of land so long due to financial constraints but thereafter has applied for a sanction plan from the KMC, which indicates his bona fide intention to start construction on the plot of land. However, due to the Society's laches in not providing documents necessary for obtaining sanction plan, the grant of sanction for construction has been delayed inordinately. The share certificate was issued only on December 8, 2006. Prior to such issuance, the membership of the petitioner had not been complete in all respects to enable the petitioner to obtain sanction from the KMC for constructing on the plot of land allotted to him. Thus, there has been no fault on the part of the petitioner in delaying construction on the plot of land allotted to him, the petitioner contends.

10. Hence, the show cause notice and subsequent notice to surrender were without jurisd