Legal action under S.78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act must respect principles of natural justice, including the right to respond to specific charges.

1. The two petitioners in this Special Civil Application challenge the legality and validity of the order passed by the Government of Maharashtra on 8th November 1970 in exercise of their revisional .jurisdiction under S.154 of the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Petitioner No.1 is a Co - operative Housing Society registered under the Act in or about the year 1960. Petitioner No.2 is one of the 13 shareholders of the said Society and also Honorary Secretary appointed as such at the General Body meeting held on 27-10-1968. The facts, which gave rise to this special Civil Application, briefly are that on 3rd September 1964 the Assistant Registrar, Co - operative Societies, passed an order directing an inquiry in the affairs of this Society under S.83 of the Act. On 28-5-1968 the inquiry Officer submitted his report and referred therein to several irregularities and malpractices. The Deputy Registrar then sent extracts of the said report to the Society presumably in terms of sub-section (4) of S.83 on 28-6-1968. On 11-9-1968 the then Managing Committee of the Society resigned en bloc. The District Deputy Registrar thereupon convened a General Body meeting of the Society on 27-10-1968. Normally the balance - sheet and statements of accounts of this Society for the year ending on 30th June 1968 should have been placed before the Annual General Body meeting before the expiry of the month of September 1968. It, however, appears that for some reasons or the other the accounts of this Society remained unaudited and such statements were not ready for placing before any such Annual General Meeting. At the said meeting on 27-10-1968 referred to as "Eighth Annual General Body meeting" an Adhoc Managing Committee consisting of five persons was appointed "till the regular Managing Committee" was elected, and petitioner No.2 to this petition was elected as Honorary Secretary of the same. Some differences of opinion seem to have arisen between the Adhoc Managing Committee on the one hand and the District Deputy Registrar on the other hand in regard to the precise follow up actions to be taken to comply with the findings of the inquiry Officer. It is unnecessary to make a detailed reference to all these differences. On 1-2-1969 the Honorary Secretary of the Society seems to have complained against the District Deputy Registrar to the Divisional Joint Registrar, Bombay, but he seems to have virtually refused to take any notice of the same and, on the contrary, by his letter dated 11-4-1969 asked the Secretary vaguely to proceed with the follow up action in compliance with the report of the Inquiry Officer.

2. On 26-4-1969 the District Deputy Registrar served a notice under S.78(1) of the Act on the Chairman and Secretary and all the Members of the Adhoc Committee of the Society calling upon them to show cause as to why the said Adhoc Committee should not be superseded "in the interest of smooth and proper functioning of the Society", as in his opinion "the Adhoc Managing Committee ............... has not been functioning properly." By explanation dated 8th May 1969 cause was shown against the said proposed action, by the Honorary Secretary. At the end of the said letter the Secretary had requested the District Deputy Registrar to give him and the members of the said Adhoc Commitee a personal hearing. On 18-10-1969, however, the District Deputy Registrar without any further enquiry or hearing passed an order superseding the said Adhoc Managing Committee under sub-section (1) of S.78 of the Act and appointed one B.S. Gokral as the Administrator to manage the affair