2020 Supreme(Guj) 188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
Sachin Udhyognagar Sahkari Mandli Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 8003 of 2017
Decided On : 30-01-2020
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Amit V. Thakkar
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravindra Shah With Mr. Anil H. Patel, Mr. Kanva Antani, AGP. Rule Served By Ds
Point of Law:
It provides for any interested person to become the member of the society as per the conditions prescribed therein in-consonance with Section 22 and 36 of the Gujarat State Cooperatives Act.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Revision Application - Petitioner submitted that the respondent no.5 was allotted a plot in the petitioner society and the respondent no.5 being member of the society is bound by the bye-laws as well as resolutions passed by the managing committee as well as general body of the society. It is submitted that one who happens to be brother-in-law of the respondent no.5 was indulging in the profiteering activity by brokering sale and purchase of the plots located within the petitioner society leading to profiteering and thereby against the spirit of establishing the petitioner society itself. Held - Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner requests for stay of this order. Considering the lapse of period in between and the fact that the status has not changed. Therefore, request is accepted. The operation of this order is suspended for the period of four weeks- Petition is partly allowed. (Para 22 and 23)
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner submitted that the respondent no.5 was allotted a plot in the petitioner society and the respondent no.5 being member of the society is bound by the bye-laws as well as resolutions passed by the managing committee as well as general body of the society.
Finding of the Court:
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner requests for stay of this order. Considering the lapse of period in between and the fact that the status has not changed.
Result: Petition is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeal), Agriculture and Co-operation in Revision Application no.89 of 2016 filed by the petitioner. The aforesaid order had confirmed the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Society (Industry) and Joint Director (Textile) Cottage and Village Industries. The subject matter of the petition is the industrial plot allocated within the petitioner Cooperative Society and the respondent no.5 being one of the allottee of the plot. The issue is of charging of penal development charges from the respondent no.5 before transfer of such plot to any other person.
2. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.5 was allotted a plot no. D-27/ 5 in the petitioner society and the respondent no.5 being member of the society is bound by the bye-laws as well as resolutions passed by the managing committee as well as general body of the society.
3. It is submitted that one Pradip Tamakuwala, who happens to be brother-in-law of the respondent no.5 was indulging in the profiteering activity by brokering sale and purchase of the plots located within the petitioner society leading to profiteering and thereby against the spirit of establishing the petitioner society itself.
4. It is submitted that to curb the activity of the said Pradip Tamakuwala, the society through its committee and body had passed several resolutions by which in the event of transfer of the plots which the said Pradip Tamakuwala had himself purchased or had purchased in the name of his relatives or friends, a higher charge was to be received by the society thereby discouraging the profiteering activity of the said Pradip Tamakuwala and his associates.
5. It is submitted that as per the provisions of the Cooperative Society Act, the management of the society would lie within the society and the powers to manage and administer the society will be absolute with the members of the society. The petitioner has passed such resolutions which are accepted by all the members of the society including said Pradip Tamakuwala who has after passing of the resolution to charge higher penal development charges has paid such charges before getting such plots transferred. There is no reason why respondent no.5 who is also a member of the society should not accept the resolution. It is submitted that, if any member especially respondent no.5 is aggrieved by the resolution the provisions of the Cooperative Society Act does provide for the remedy which the respondent no.5 ought to have challenged, if aggrieved. However, in the instant case an in-genuine method has been adopted by the respondent no.5 by approaching the authority which has no jurisdiction to control the management of the society and seeing to it that the impugned order is passed by which the petitioner is compelled to receive the transfer charges at the rate mentioned in the bye-laws. Learned advocate took this Court to such communication dated 14.09.2016 (page 92) issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Society (Industry) and Joint Director (Textile) Cottage and Village Industry, Gandhinagar.
6. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Narendrabhai Maganbhai Patel And Ors. V. District Registrar, Co-op. Soceities, Vadodara and Ors., reported in 2010 (4) GLR 3092 and in the case of Gordhanbhai N. Vaghela Vs. Maruti Co-op. Housing Society and Ors., reported in 2003 (1) GLR 117 to contend that in case a member of the society is aggrieved by the resolution, then the remedy available is to challenge such resolution under the provisions of Cooperative Society Act. Learned senior advocate also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Harekrishna K. Vadhwani