The authority of the general body to expel a member under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 is validated when due procedure is followed.

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned advocate for the appellant, Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents and Mr. P.R. Abichandani, learned advocate appearing for the Society.

2. The present intra-court appeal is pending for the last more than 20 years. The challenge is to the judgment and order dated 30.01.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed noticing that the original petitioner was a member of the society named as ‘Bankim Co-operative Housing Society’. The original petitioner was expelled from the membership of the society vide resolution No.4 of the General Body of the Society passed in the meeting held on 27.12.1987. The order records that the final authority shall vest in the Members of the General Body as per Section 36 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and there is nothing on record to indicate that the impugned resolution was not passed by the Society in its general meeting as envisaged under Section 36 of the Act. There is an observation in the order impugned that the requirement of Section 36 of the Co-operative Societies Act for expelling the Member of the Society has been strictly followed and the removal of the original petitioner is in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the bye-laws of the society. We may record at the outset, that on the presentation of the present Letters Patent Appeal, no interim order has been passed for a period of more than

20 years.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant herein that for removal of office bearers of the Society, the power lies with the Registrar under Section 76B of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (in short refers as the “Act, 1961”) on the allegations made in the show cause notice served upon the petitioner. Based on the same allegation, the general body of the Society could not have exercised power under Section 36 of the Act, 1961 for expulsion of the petitioner from membership. Moreover, once the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the general body of the Society to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain her conduct.

3.1. It is further argued that the question needs to be examined by this Court is as to whether, the meeting of the general body of the Society could have been called by the Manager and he was competent to do so and the decision of the general body for expulsion of the petitioner as a member of the Society by virtue of Section 36 of the Act, 1961 can be sustained in the eye of law.

3.2. It is further submitted by even the appellate authority has recorded that the allegations against the petitioner were of commission of irregularities during the tenure of the petitioner as a Secretary of the Society. In this scenario, instead of invoking Section 76B of the Act, 1961, it was not open for the Managing Committee of the Society to call for the general body meeting for expulsion of the petitioner. It was pre-determined act of the general body of the Society and being in violation of the principles of natural justice, the resolution dated 27.12.1987 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

4. Taking note of all these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to record that the provisions of Section 36 and 76B of the Act, 1961 are independent to each other. The proceedings for expulsion of a member of the Society can be undertaken under Section 36 of the Act, 1961 and as per the provisions therein