The authority of the Representative General Body in expelling a member and the procedure for removal of members as defined by the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act and the bank's bye-laws.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, to punish both the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order of this Hon’ble Court made in W.P. No. 17576 of 2019, dated 21.06.2019.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2.

2. The Repatriate Co-operative Finance and Development Bank Ltd., (REPCO Bank) is a Society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner herein being a repatriate “A” class member of the Society and Delegate Member of the General Body of REPCO Bank, elected from T. Nagar Constituency on 14.07.2014 for a period of five year. He was served with show cause notice on 13.06.2019 by the Managing Director of the REPCO Bank for alleged acts against the interest of the Society. The said show cause notice was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 17576 of 2019 on the ground that, as per Bye-laws of the Society, the Managing Director of the REPCO Bank has no authority to remove a member. This Court, after hearing the submissions of the petitioner and the respondents passed order on 21.06.2019 as under:-

“The present writ petition is filed by the member of the respondent society, challenging the Show Cause Notice on the ground that the Managing Director of the Repco Bank has no power to remove a member as per bye-law.

2. However, on reading the impugned order of the respondent, it is only a Show Cause Notice and it is not an order for removal of member. It is also brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents that pursuant to the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner has given his explanation dated 17.06.2019 and his explanation will be considered in accordance with law and no order will be passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner to justify his explanation.

3. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent herein to act on the explanation given by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.”

3. In this contempt petition, the petitioner states that, even before the receipt of the order copy, the respondents herein have meticulously planned and removed him from the ‘A’ class membership and Delegate Member, without giving opportunity to explain his case. According to the petitioner, on receipt of the show cause notice dated 13.06.2019, he sent an interim reply on 17.06.2019 and through letters dated 18.06.2019 and 19.06.2019 wrote to the 2nd defendant to furnish the copy of the documents referred in the show cause notice. Meanwhile, apprehending removal from membership, he filed the Writ Petition and the same was disposed on 21.06.2019 with direction. While so, in the Representative General Body (hereinafter referred as “RGB”) meeting held on 22.06.2019, the 1st respondent ignoring the Court order announced the petitioner’s removal from ‘A’ class membership and Delegate Member. This amounts to Contempt of the Court order passed in W.P. No. 17576 of 2019 since in that order, the Court has directed the respondents to give opportunity to the petitioner and the order copy itself was hosted in the website only on 27.06.2019.

4. In the affidavits filed in response to the contempt petition, the 1st and 2nd respondents would state that all the allegations and averments made in the contempt petition are denied and the contempt petition is not maintainable. It has to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of fact.

5. According to the respondents, in the RGB meeting held on 22.06.2019 at Hotel Savera, Chennai, out of 128 delegates present, 123 delegates submitted a memorandum duly signed, seeking removal of the petitioner from ‘A’ class membership for his anti-bank activities, which were detrimental to the interest of the Bank. The said ag