Contravention of Bye-laws of a registered society and its effect on proceedings.

This petition is for grant of a writ, direction or order, as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case, particularly a writ in the nature of quo warranto to the first respondent calling upon him to show under what legal authority he is acting as President of the Valaieduppu Multi-purpose Co-operative Credit Society.

The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated. The petitioner was one of the Executive Committee members elected under section 27 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Under the bye-laws, he was also elected President of the Committee for the management of the society. There were some misunderstandings between the members of the Executive Committe, and on 9th June, 1965, a few members of the Committee expressed dissatisfaction of the management of the society by the President. The Extension Officer (Co-operation) Thathiengarpet conducted an enquiry into the affairs of the society. He issued notice to the petitioner, but he refused to acknowledge the receipt of the same. On 22nd June, 1965, the third respondent, as Enquiry Officer issued a notice calling for the meeting of the Panchayat at 2 p.m. on 25th June, 1965. No agenda or particulars of business were mentioned in this notice. It was requested that the Panchayatdars may be present at the meeting. This notice was issued on 22nd June, 1965 by registered post and it was acknowledged by the petitioner on 28th June, 1965. While so, the meeting as directed was held at 2 p.m. on 25th June, 1965. Four members were present and the petitioner was absent. As the petitioner was absent, a new Minutes Book was opened and the proceedings of the previous meeting dated 9th June, 1965 were recorded and the meeting was adjourned. On the same day, the four panchayatdars gave a requisition to the third respondent to elect a new President. The third respondent issued notices fixing the meeting at 5 P.M. on the same day to consider the action to be taken in the circumstances, and to elect a new President. It is stated that an attempt was made to serve the petitioner for the adjourned meeting at 5 p.m. but as he was not available, it was served on him by affixture in his house.

At the meeting at 5 p.m. the Panchayat passed a resolution removing the petitioner from the office of the President and elected the first respondent herein as the President and authorised him to convene a meeting for deciding who was to retire in rotation and for electing new members. The Panchayat again met at 5-30 p.m. and passed a resolution to the effect that a general body meeting be convened at 3 p.m. on 28th June, 1965 for determining as to which of the two members should retire by drawing lots. Timings for calling for nominations, withdrawals and election if necessary and declaration of the result were fixed. The general body meeting was held at 3 p.m. on 28th June, 1965, and lots were drawn in that meeting. The petitioner and one Ramaswami Reddiar were declared retired by rotation. As there were only two nominations for the two vacancies, they were declared elected. Subsequently, a meeting of the new Panchayat was held, and the first respondent was elected as the President.

The petitioner submits that there is no provision in the Act for removal of the President, that the meeting convened was without notice to him and illegal and that, in any event the convening of the meeting at 5 p.m. on 25th June, 1965 without notice to him and the passing of the resolution removing him from the office of the President and appointing the first respondent as President cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner also submits that the retirement of two members at the general body meeting on 28th June, 1965 is opposed to the requirement of the Act, whereby the retirement can only be effected by the Committee. It is further urged that the Board is in error in declaring the petitioner retired and electing two new members to the two vacancies. The subsequent election of the first