Disqualification of members and representatives of co-operative societies under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner-Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Shahdol seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 14. 8. 1997 passed in Revision Case No. 125-Toan/97 which arose from the order dated 22. 4. 1997 passed in Case No. Credit/97/770 by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative societies, Rewa.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts for disposal of the petition are that on 22. 4. 1997, the Joint registrar Co-operative Societies sent a letter to the petitioners craving indulgence to the fact that Vipnan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Shahdol was defaulter to the medium term godown loan principal amount being Rs. 82,673. 45p. and interest thereon as on 1. 1. 1997 being Rs. 92,510. 15p. and as the amount was over due for more than 12 months, the representative of the said Vipnan sahkari Sanstha could not hold the office of a Director for the petitioner, therefore, action under Section 19-AA of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be taken against them. On 26. 4. 1997 vide letter No. Adhyaksh/97-98/399, the President of the petitioner-Society asked the respondent No. 1 that as his parent society (i. e. Vipnan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Shahdol) was a defaulter member, why the respondent No. 1 be not removed under the provisions of Rule 43 (3) of the co-operative Societies Rules, 1962.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 in response to the notice, submitted that the notice (Annexure P-2) was without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of law and as the petitioner-Bank had already filed a dispute under section 64 of the Act, no disqualification could be attached to the respondent no. 1. He also submitted that the respondent No. 1 was not a defaulter member but in fact the Vipnan Sahkari Samiti was a defaulter; and as such, a show cause notice ought to have been issued to the gross root society.

( 4 ) IT appears that without making an enquiry into the allegations or counter allegations or without service) a notice upon the Vipnan Sahkari samiti, or without giving an opportunity of hearing to the said Samiti, the petitioner-Bank in its meeting dated 6. 5. 1997 took up the present matter as item No. 9 (5) with the permission of the chair. The record shows that the matter was considered by the Directors and the present respondent No. 1 was also heard. After hearing the respondent No. 1, the petitioner-Society held that the respondent No. 1 is disqualified for holding the office of the Director. The respondent No. 1 was accordingly removed.

( 5 ) THE respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision-petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 14th August, 1997, held that as the principles of natural justice were not observed and as proper opportunity to defend was not given to the respondent no. 1 and as the matter was considered very casually, not in a meeting specially convened for the purpose, the resolution passed by the petitioner-Society was illegal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner- central society has filed this petition.

( 6 ) I have heard the parties at length.

( 7 ) A perusal of Section 19-AA would show that no person shall be eligible for election as a member of the committee of a society and shall cease to hold the office as such, if he suffers from such disqualification as may be prescribed. A perusal of this provision, would clearly show that it does not apply to a member society but it confines to a person in person. If a member of the society suffers with any disqualification, then, he shall not be eligible for his election and he shall cease to hold the office as such. The later part of Section 19-AA provides that no society shall elect any member as its representative to the committee of any other society or to represent the society in other society, if he suffers from such disqualification as may be prescribed. The