Bombay High Court
The Talathi Sahakari Grih Nirman ... vs Smt. Hirabai Kondaji Chothave And Ors on 24 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:3453
k 1/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.368 OF 1999
The Talathi Sahakari Grih
Nirman Sanstha Ltd.,
Dindori Road, Nashik. ....Petitioner
V/S
1 Hirabai Kondaji Chothave
Residing at 342, Hiralal Lane,
Raviwar Peth, Nashik - 422 001.
2 The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
Nashik Taluka,
District Nashik.
3 The Divisional Joint Registrar
Co-operative Societies, Nashik.
4 The State of Maharashtra
through the Hon'ble Minisiter for State
Department of Co-operative & Textiles,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. P.N. Joshi for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rameshwar Gite with Ms. Pratiksha P. Shelke for
Respondent No.1.
Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4/State.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON : 17 JANUARY 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON: 24 JANUARY 2025.
katkam Page No. 1 of 18
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 10:24:04 :::
k 2/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
JUDGMENT:
1. Petitioner-Society has filed this Petition challenging order
dated 14 September 1998 passed by learned Minister (Co-
operation) rejecting Revision Application preferred by it and
confirming order dated 12 May 1989 passed by Divisional Joint
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik, who in turn had
confirmed order dated 5 May 1987 of Deputy Registrar. The
Deputy Registrar has rejected approval to Resolution No.36
adopted by the Petitioner-Society in Special General Body
Meeting held on 30 June 1974 relating to expulsion of
Respondent No. 1. The net result of the orders passed by Deputy
Registrar, Divisional Joint Registrar and the learned Minister is
that the decision adopted by the Society to expel Respondent
No.1 from membership has not been approved. The learned
Minister has further directed the Petitioner-Society to allot plot
to Respondent No.1, failing which Deputy Registrar is directed
to take appropriate action against the Petitioner-Society.
Petitioner-Society is thus aggrieved by rejection proposal for
expulsion of Respondent No.1 as well as direction of the learned
Minister to allot plot of land to her.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner is a
Co-operative Housing Society registered under the provisions of
the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the MCS
Act). Petitioner-Society is a tenant ownership society and owned
a plot of land and allotted different plots to its members.
k 3/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
Respondent No.1 was enrolled as Member of Petitioner-Society.
A resolution was adopted in the General Body Meeting of the
Petitioner-Society held on 31 October 1971 and it was resolved to
collect Rs.3,000/- from each member so as to enable the Society
to make a consolidated proposal for loan to a financial institution
for carrying out construction. It appears that Respondent No.1
paid amount of Rs.1,011/- and sought time to pay the balance
amount.
3. Petitioner-Society found that total eight members,
including Respondent No.1, were not showing co-operation by
paying the due amount of contribution of Rs.3,000/-. It appears
that some communications were addressed to Respondent No.1
and other defaulter members calling them upon to make good
the default. Since Respondent No.1 and other defaulting
members failed to make good the default, Petitioner-Society
adopted resolution dated 17 February 1974 expelling Respondent
No.1 and others from membership. The Petitioner-Society made
application for approval of expulsion on 26 February 1974 to the
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik. By order
dated 9 May 1974, the proposal was rejected by the Assistant
Registrar observing that requisite notice of one month
contemplated under provisions of Rule 29 of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (the MCS Rules) was not
issued to Respondent No.1 and therefore the proposal for grant
of approval to expulsion was rejected by order dated 9 May 1974.
k 4/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
4. It is the case of the Petitioner-Society that notice dated 16
May 1974 was addressed to Respondent No.1 informing her of
meeting convened on 23 June 1974. The Petitioner-Society
changed the date of the meeting to 30 June 1974, agenda of
which was also dispatched to Respondent No.1 on 20 June 1974.
However Respondent No.1 failed to remain present for the
meeting held on 30 June 1974. Accordingly, the Petitioner-
Society adopted a resolution of 30 June 1974 for expelling
Respondent No.1 from its membership. Accordingly, application
dated 18 July 1974 was made to the Assistant Registrar seeking
his approval for resolution for expulsion which was followed by
several other remainders. The Assistant Registrar however did
not take any decision on the proposal till the year 1987. On 5
May 1987, the Assistant Registrar informed the Petitioner-
Society that the approval for resolution of expulsion could not be
granted. It is the case of the Petitioner-Society that construction
of tenements was undertaken in the meantime without any
objection on the part of Respondent No.1.
5. Petitioner-Society filed Appeal before the Divisional Joint
Registrar challenging the order dated 5 May 1987 passed by the
Assistant Registrar. The Appeal was however dismissed by order
dated 12 May 1989. Petitioner-Society preferred Revision before
the learned Minster (Co-operation), which is also dismissed by
order dated 14 September 1998. In addition to dismissing the
Revision Application and confirming the order of Assistant
Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar, the learned Minister
has issued further direction for allotment of plot to Respondent
k 5/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
No.1, failing which the Deputy Registrar is directed to act
against the Petitioner-Society. Aggrieved by the order of the
learned Minister, dated 14 September 1998, Petitioner-Society
has filed the present Petition.
6. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
would submit that the learned Minister has erred in rejecting
the Revision Application on extraneous consideration of non-
availability of plot for allotment to Respondent No.1. That the
real issue for consideration before the learned Minister was
about following of procedure mandated under Rules 28 and 29 of
the MCS Rules read with section 34 of the MCS Act and instead
of deciding the said issue, the learned Minister has rejected the
revision only because the Society informed him that no plot was
available for allotment to Respondent No.1.
7. Mr. Joshi would take me through the order passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar on 12 May 1989 to demonstrate that
the Appeal was rejected on the ground that the show-cause
notice dated 16 May 1974 was not served on Respondent No.1.
He would submit that since the said finding recorded by the
Divisional Joint Registrar is factually erroneous, Petitioner-
Society produced office copy of notice dated 16 May 1974 together
with acknowledgment of Respondent No.1 dated 23 May 1974.
That thus the factum of dispatch and service of notice dated 16
May 1974 was clearly established before the learned Minister.
Instead of recording a finding based on the said material
k 6/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
produced by the Petitioner-Society, the learned Minister rejected
the Revision Application by taking into consideration irrelevant
material of non-availability of plot. Mr. Joshi would submit that
provisions of Rules 28 and 29 of the MCS Rules have been
followed to the hilt and that therefore the orders passed by the
Assistant Registrar, the Divisional Joint Registrar and the
learned Minister are liable to be set aside.
8. Lastly, Mr. Joshi would submit that the learned Minister
was gone overboard by deciding something which was never a
subject matter of revision filed before him. That instead of
restricting the decision about approval of resolution for
expulsion, the learned Minister has erroneously directed the
Petitioner-Society to allot plot to Respondent No.1, which
direction is clearly beyond the scope of proceedings filed before
him. That if proposal for expulsion of Respondent No.1 is not
accepted, the same would merely result in continuation of her
membership, but mere continuation of her membership would
not ipso facto result in allotment of plot to her. Respondent No.1
will have to adopt necessary proceedings with regard to alleged
grievance of non-allotment of plot, which issue cannot be mixed
with the proceedings for approval of the resolution of expulsion.
He would therefore submit that regardless of correctness or
otherwise of refusal to approve expulsion, the direction of the
learned Minister for allotment of plot must go.
9. The Petition is opposed by Mr. Gite, the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1. He would submit that the three
k 7/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
authorities have concurrently held that the Petitioner-Society
did not follow the prescribed procedure laid down in Section 35 of
the MCS Act read with Rules 28 and 29 of the MCS Rules while
effecting expulsion of Respondent No.1. He would submit that
the very ground of expulsion is factually incorrect as Respondent
No.1 had paid amount of Rs. 1,011/- and had sought time of 15
days for deposit of the balance amount. That therefore the very
assumption of total failure on the part of Respondent No.1 to
contribute any amount to the Petitioner-Society is itself factually
incorrect. He would also support the direction issued by the
learned Minister for allotment of the plot by contending that the
learned Minister is the ultimate authority to take all necessary
decisions with regard to a Co-operative Society. That rejection of
approval for expulsion resolution would necessarily mean
continuation of membership of Respondent No.1 and so long as
the membership continues, the Petitioner-Society is under
obligation to allot plot to Respondent No.1. He would therefore
submit that the learned Minister has rightly directed the
Petitioner-Society to allot plot to Respondent No.1. He would
pray for dismissal of the Petition.
10. I have also heard Mr. Rayrikar, the learned AGP appearing
for Respondent Nos.2 to 4/State, who would also support the
concurrent findings recorded in the three orders passed by the
Assistant Registrar, Divisional Joint Registrar and the learned
Minister and would pray for dismissal of the Petition.
k 8/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
11. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
12. In the present case, the earlier attempt made by the
Petitioner-Society to expel Respondent No.1 from membership
vide a resolution adopted on 17 February 1974 was thwarted by
the Assistant Registrar by his decision dated 9 May 1974 holding
that the Society did not issue notice of one month to Respondent
No.1 before adopting the resolution for expulsion. The Petitioner-
Society claims that Notice dated 16 May 1974 for fresh meeting
was served on Respondent No.1, which she received on 23 May
1974 and accordingly decision for expulsion is taken in the
meeting held on 30 June 1974. In the light of this position, the
issue that arises for consideration is whether the resolution for
expulsion of Respondent No.1 has been lawfully adopted or not.
13. Section 35 of the MCS Act deals with expulsion of
members and provides thus:
"35. Expulsion of members
(1) A society may, by resolution passed by a majority of
not less than three-fourths of the members entitled to vote who
are present at a general meeting held for the purpose, expel a
member for acts which are detrimental to the interest or proper
working of the society;
Provided that, no resolution shall be valid, unless the
member concerned is given an opportunity of representing his
case to the general body, and no resolution shall be effective
unless it is approved by the Registrar.
(2) No member of a society who has been expelled
under the foregoing sub-section shall be eligible for re-
admission as a member of that society, or for admission as a
member of any other society, for a period of one year from the
date of such expulsion.
k 9/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
Provided that, the Registrar may, on an application by the
society and in special circumstances, sanction the re-admission
or admission, within the said period, of any such member as a
member of the said society or of any other society, as the case
may be."
14. Thus, a resolution passed by majority of not less than
three-fourth of members entitled to vote, who are present at a
general body meeting convened for the purpose of expulsion of
the member, would entail such expulsion. The procedure for
expelling the member is provided for in Rules 28 and 29 of the
MCS Rules which provide thus:
"28. Expulsion of Members
Any member who has been persistently defaulting
payment of his dues or has been failing to comply with the
provisions of the bye-laws regarding sales of his produce
through the society, or other matters in connection with his
dealings with the society or who, in the opinion of the
committee, has brought disrepute to the society or has done
other acts detrimental to the interest or proper working of the
society or for the reasons mentioned in section 26 of the Act,
may, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of
Section 35, be expelled from the society. Expulsion from
membership may involve forfeiture of shares held by the
member."
29 Procedure for expulsion of members
(1) Where any member of a society proposes to bring a
resolution for expulsion of any other member, he shall give a
written notice thereof to the Chairman of the society. On receipt
of notice or when the committee itself decides to bring in such
resolution, the consideration of such resolution shall be
included in the agenda for the next general body meetings and a
notice thereof shall be given to the member against whom such
resolution is proposed to be brought, calling upon him to be
present at the general body meetings to be held not earlier than
k 10/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
a period of one month from the date of such notice and to show
cause against expulsion to the general body of members. After
hearing the member, if present, or after taking into
consideration any written representation which he might have
sent, the general body of members shall proceed to consider the
resolution.
(2) When a resolution passed in accordance with sub-
rule (1) is sent to the Registrar along with application, the
Registrar may consider the resolution and after due inquiry and
giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to such member
give his decision within ninety days from the date of receipt of
application and communicate the same to the society and the
member concerned. The resolution shall be effective from the
date of such approval."
15. Thus, under provisions of Rule 29 of the MCS Rules, when
the committee itself decides to bring a resolution for expulsion of
a member, consideration of such resolution is required to be
included in the agenda for next General Body Meeting and notice
thereof must be served on the concerned member, who is sought
to be expelled. The meeting for expulsion is required to be
convened after a period of one month from the date of the notice.
16. In the present case, Mr. Joshi relies on notice dated 16 May
1974, which, according to him, was for the purpose of Special
General Body Meeting convened on 30 June 1974 in which
resolution for expulsion of Respondent No.1 was adopted. Notice
dated 16 May 1974 reads thus:
"यापूर्वी तुम्हास ठरार्वी नंबर १५ बाबत जा.नं. २९ ता. २३-२-७४ ने
कळविर्वीले ले पत्र रद्द समजून तुम्हास या नोटीशीने कळविर्वीणेत येते की :
संस्थेच्या मालकीच्या जागेर्वीर बांधकामास लर्वीकर सुरुर्वीात करार्वीयाची आहे.
त्यासाठी बांधकामास येणारे खचा1चे र्वीीस टक्के रक्कम म्हणजे रुपये ३०००/- तीन हजार
संस्थेकडे भरणेबद्दल र्वीारंर्वीार तारीख १५-९-७२, १७-८-७३, २०-१२-७३,
k 11/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
२-२-७४ ला कळर्वीूनही तुम्ही रक्कम भरली नाही. वि7र्वीसेंवि7र्वीस बांधकाम मटेरिरयलचे
भार्वी र्वीाढत चालले . र्वी कजा1चे प्रकरणही पाठविर्वीता आले नाही.
हे तुमचे कृत्य संस्थेच्या विहतास र्वी संस्था योग्य रिरतीने चालविर्वीण्यास
अपायकारक असले ने तुम्हास संस्थेमधून का काढू न लार्वीण्यांत येऊ नये याचे कारण
7ाखविर्वीणेस वि7नांक २३-६-७४ रोजी भरणाऱ्या विर्वीशेष साधारण सभेस तुम्ही हजर
राहार्वीे हजर ना झाल्यास तुमचे काहीही म्हणणे नाही असे समजून तुम्हास संस्थेमधून
काढू न टाकणेचा विनण1 य नाविर्वीलाजास्तर्वी घेण्यात येईल.
बांधकाम मटेरिरयलचे भार्वी र्वीाढले म्हणून र्वीर 7ाखल केले ल्या रक्कमे शिशर्वीाय
आणखी जा7ा रक्कम रुपये ६०० प्रत्येक सभास7ास भरार्वीे लागतील. ज्यांची संपूण1
रक्कम येईल त्यांनाच प्लॉटचे र्वीाटप करण्यात येईल र्वी बांधकाम सुरु करून कजा1चे
प्रकरण तयार करता येईल. तरी आपण या उभे केले ल्या काया1स तन मन धनाने
सहकाय1 करून संस्थेचे नांर्वी उज्र्वील कराल अशी आशा बाळगतो. कळार्वीे."
(emphasis and underlining added)
17. Notice dated 16 May 1974 was addressed to 11 members
including the Respondent No.1 alleging non-payment of
contribution of Rs.3,000/- for commencement of construction and
calling upon Respondent No.1 to show-cause in Special General
Body Meeting convened on '23 June 1974' as to why she should
not be expelled. The notice further stated that in addition to the
contribution already decided, members were required to deposit
additional amount of Rs.600/- on account of increase in the costs
of construction. It appears that the notice dated 16 May 1974
was dispatched to Respondent No.1 vide Registered Post A.D.
and it appears that the said notice was acknowledged by the
Respondent No.1 on 23 May 1974. Petitioner-Society has placed
on record photocopy of the postal acknowledgment bearing
signature of Respondent No.1 for having received the notice on
23 May 1974.
18. However, in the notice dated 16 May 1974 it was stated
that Meeting of General Body was convened on '23 June 1974'. It
k 12/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
is an admitted position that no meeting of General Body actually
took place on 23 June 1974. It appears that the meeting was
instead convened and held on 30 June 1974. Notice dated 15
June 1974 was sent to Respondent No.1 in respect of meeting
convened on 30 June 1974. Notice dated 15 June 1974 reads
thus:
"याव्7ारे नोटीशीने कळविर्वीण्यात येते की तलाठी गृहविनमा1ण सहकारी संस्थेची
विर्वीशेष साधारण सभा चौथी नासिसक येथे कले क्टर कचेरीतील सेर्वीाविनर्वीृत्त सैविनकांचे
आरामघर येथे रविर्वीर्वीार वि7नांक ३०-६-७४ रोजी 7पु ारी २ र्वीाजता खालील कामकाज
करण्यासाठी भरणार आहे, तरी सर्वी1 सभास7ानी जरूर हजर रहार्वीे.
तारीख २३/६/७४ ला हजर राहू नका.
(१) मागील सभेचे प्रेासिसडींग र्वीाचून मंजूर करणे.
(२) आतापयUत इााले ल्या जमाखचा1चे र्वीाचन करून मंजूरी 7ेणे.
(३) संस्थेने तारीख १९-५-७४ रोजी काढले ल्या पत्रकास मंजरी 7ेणे.
(४) सविमतीच्या र्वी बांधकाम सविमतींच्या ज्या विमटींगा झाल्या त्याचे र्वीाचन करून
त्यांस मंजुरी 7ेणे.
(५) बाधकामार्वीर र्वीेळोर्वीेळी 7ेखरेख करणेसाठी सभास7ाची आळीपाळीने नेमणूक
करणेबाबत विर्वीचार करणे.
(६) ज्यांनी बांधकामाची रक्कम अपूण1 भरली त्यांचे र्वीाचकाम सुरु करणे किंकर्वीा काय
याबाबत ठाम विनण1 य घेणे
(७) ज्यांनी बांधकामासाठी रक्क्म भरली नाही त्यांना संस्थेमधून काढू न का टाकु
नये म्हणून तारीख १६-५-७४ चे नोटीशीने कळविर्वीले आहे. त्यांचे म्हणणे
ऐकून त्याना संस्थेमधून काढू न टाकणेचा विनण1 य घेणे.
(८) सभापती यांना मानधन 7ेणेचा विनण1 य घेणे.
(९) साईटर्वीर र्वीेळोर्वीेळी जार्वीे लागते, त्याकरिरता मोटार सायकलसाठी पेट्रोल
करिरता खचा1चा विर्वीचार करणे.
(१०) बाधकामासाठी प्रत्येक सभास7ाने स्र्वीतःचे प्लॉटचे कामार्वीर जातीने हजर राहून
7ेखरेख करणे बाबत.
(११) अध्यक्षांचे परर्वीानगीने पुढे आणाले ल्या कामकाजाचा विर्वीचार करणे."
(emphasis and underlining added)
19. It appears that the agenda for expelling defaulting
members was included in the Notice dated 15 June 1974.
k 13/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
However, there is nothing on record to indicate that notice dated
15 June 1974 was served on Respondent No.1. There is no postal
acknowledgment on record to indicate that Respondent No.1
received Notice dated 15 June 1974. However, even if the said
Notice dated 15 June 1974 was to be received by Respondent No.
1, the same would still not comply with provisions of Rule 29 of
the MCS Rules. Rule 29 of the MCS Rules requires service of
notice one month before conducting the General Body Meeting in
which resolution for expulsion is to be considered. Notice dated
15 June 1974 was in respect of meeting scheduled on 30 June
1974 and since it is not one month prior notice, the same would
not conform to the statutory requirement under Rule 29 of the
MCS Rules.
20. Thus, though the notice dated 16 May 1974 appears to be
acknowledged by Respondent No.1, the same was not for meeting
which is actually held on 30 June 1974. Therefore, notice dated
16 May 1974, which is acknowledged by Respondent No.1, would
not comply with requirements of Rule 29 of the MCS Rules.
Though the meeting was convened as 23 June 1974 Petitioner-
Society later changed the date of notice from 23 June 1974 to 30
June 1974. In any case, the notice dated 16 May 1974 did not
communicate the agenda of expulsion, which was supposed to be
taken up in the meeting supposed to be convened on 23 June
1974. Since no notice of General Body Meeting took place on 23
June 1974, service of notice dated 15 June 1974 is otherwise
meaningless.
k 14/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
21. Issuance of proper notice before taking drastic steps for
expulsion of a member is mandatory. By expelling Respondent
No.1 from membership, she would lose valuable right of
property. In that view of the matter, since the action of expulsion
is drastic in nature, the entire procedure prescribed in Section
35 of the MCS Act read with Rules 28 and 29 of the MCS Rules
must be followed to the hilt.
22. In the present case, there appears to be numerous
irregularities on the part of Petitioner-Society in following the
requisite procedure for adopting resolution of expulsion. The
Petitioner-Society did not issue one-month prior notice to
Respondent No.1 about meeting scheduled to be held on 30 June
1974. There is nothing on record to indicate that the notice dated
15 June 1974 is actually received by Respondent No.1. Notice
dated 16 May 1974 was itself faulty as it mentioned erroneous
date for convening General Body Meeting. The said notice did
not contain agenda of the meeting. In my view, these
irregularities go to the root of the matter and therefore I do not
find any valid reason to hold that resolution for expulsion of
Respondent No.1 has been validly adopted. The Assistant
Registrar has rightly rejected the approval for expulsion
resolution and in that sense, no serious error can be traced in
the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar, Divisional Joint
Registrar and the learned Minister.
23. Mr. Joshi has strenuously submitted that since the learned
Minister has not conducted an enquiry into service of valid
k 15/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
notice before adopting resolution for expulsion, the order is liable
to be set aside. Though the learned Minister has highlighted the
conduct on the part of Petitioner-Society in bluntly informing the
learned Minister that it had no plot left for allotment to
Respondent No.1, it cannot be contended that the learned
Minister has not decided the issue of service of valid notice
required under Rule 29 of the MCS Rules. The learned Minister
has upheld all the reasonings adopted by the Assistant Registrar
and Divisional Joint Registrar relating to failure to serve valid
notice. The conduct of Petitioner-Society in representing non-
availability of plot for allotment to Respondent No.1 is just an
additional factor considered by the learned Minister and mere
consideration of such additional factor would not render the
entire judgment on the order illegal. In fact, this Court also does
not approve the action of Petitioner-Society in not reserving a
plot for Respondent No.1. Petitioner- Society was fully aware of
the requirement of obtaining approval for expulsion resolution
under proviso to Section 35(1) of the MCS Act. This was
Petitioner-Society's second attempt to secure such approval.
After adopting the resolution for expulsion of Respondent No.1
in meeting shown to have been held on 30 June 1974, Petitioner-
Society made application dated 18 July 1974 for grant of
approval to the resolution for expulsion. It appears that the said
application of Petitioner-Society remained pending and no
decision was communicated to the Petitioner-Society on the said
application. There is no provision in the Act under which
approval can be said to be automatic nor there is any deeming
faction under which the approval takes effect on passage of any
k 16/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
time upon non-decision of the proposal. Approval needs to be
expressly secured from the Assistant Registrar and mere
passage of some time after filing of application for approval
would not ipso facto mean that the Petitioner-Society could have
proceeded ahead and take decisions on an assumption that the
expulsion resolution has been approved by the Assistant
Registrar. Therefore, the actions of the Petitioner-Society in
proceedings ahead by assuming that Respondent No.1 already
stood expelled are totally erroneous. In that view of the matter,
since Petitioner-Society has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot turn blind eye to the illegal acts of the Petitioner-
Society in proceedings on a presumption of expulsion of
Respondent No.1. For such conduct of Petitioner-Society, it is
required to be saddled with costs.
24. Coming to the issue of correctness of direction issued by
the learned Minister for allotment of plot, in my view, this was
something outside the preview of proceedings initiated before the
Assistant Registrar. The approval to the expulsion resolution
was sought under proviso to sub section (1) of Section 35 of the
MCS Act. Approval of the resolution for expulsion is mandatorily
required to be secured from the Registrar. In the present case,
the impugned orders result in a situation that there is no
approval to the expulsion resolution. This would essentially
mean that Respondent No.1 continuous to be the member of the
Petitioner-Society. The learned Minister therefore ought to have
restricted his order only to the issue of validity of expulsion and
k 17/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
he ought not to have gone into the issue of allotment of plot to
Respondent No.1. The issue of allotment of plot was clearly
outside the purview of enquiry of approval under proviso to sub
section (1) of Section 35 of the MCS Act. I am therefore of the
view that though the order passed by the learned Minister on 14
September 1998 is required to be sustained qua the validity of
orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and Divisional Joint
Registrar, the same is liable to be set aside to the limited extent
of directing Petitioner-Society to allot plot to Respondent No.1.
In my view, rejection of approval to expulsion resolution would
result in retention of membership of Respondent No.1 and
accordingly she will have to adopt appropriate proceedings for
securing benefits arising out of retention of her membership.
Therefore, the direction for allotment of plot to Respondent No.1
deserves to be set aside.
25. The next issue for consideration is whether it would be
appropriate to drive Respondent No. 1 to another round of
lengthy litigation for securing the benefits flowing through her
membership. There is no doubt to the position that the
Respondent No. 1 will have to adopt necessary remedy to claim
benefits flowing out of her membership. If the Society now
claims that it has no plot left for allotment, Respondent No. 1
can press her claim for compensation in lieu of allotment of plot.
The Court/Authority before whom proceedings need to be filed by
Respondent No. 1 can be directed to decide such proceedings in a
time bound manner considering the long passage of time.
However regardless of claim for allotment of plot/compensation,
k 18/18 11 wp 368.99 J.doc
the sufferings undergone by Respondent No. 1 need to be
mitigated to some extent at this juncture by awarding costs in
her favour, particularly considering the conduct of Petitioner-
Society as discussed above.
26. I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
i) Order dated 14 September 1998 passed by the learned
Minister, Co-operation, to the extent of upholding orders dated 5
May 1987 of Deputy Registrar and 12 May 1989 of Divisional
Joint Registrar is upheld.
ii) However, direction of the learned Minister for allotment of
plot to Respondent No.1 is set aside.
iii) Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to file appropriate
proceedings for either allotment of plot or for grant of
compensation in the event Petitioner-Society is not left with any
plot of land before the appropriate court/authority. The
application preferred by the Respondent No.1 for allotment of
plot/compensation shall be decided by the Court/Authority to
which such application is made within a period of six months
from the date of filing of the proceedings.
iv) Petitioner-Society shall pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to
Respondent No. 1.
27. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date: 2025.01.24
15:10:12 +0530
