Can an Associate Members be removed at Instruction of Main Member? Or he is Member only by Paying Entrance fee Rs 10 / 100. Can court give him Right of Possession? If he is living in as Gratuitous Licenses? If he does not resign?
I C Naik
Most casually (irresponsibly) regulated issue by cooperative society establishment is that of “Associate Member.” Its implications in management of affairs of co-operative housing societies can be terrifying. Unfortunately this is beyond the imagination of any person in the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies establishment. This establishment has contributed the most to the confusion and I have brought this out several times.. The issue Anand Hardikar is facing is : “Right of continuing the Possession” to such Associate member against the wishes of the owner member, without whose consent the Associate membership could not be conferred by the managing committee. I am tempted to recall the observations (TOI 2-02-2015) made by no less than the esteemed Chairman C A Ramesh Prabhu of Maharashtra Societies Welfare Association {“NGO” To Represent And Solve Problems Of Housing Society And Property Matters.} This is what he said to TOI “The SCEA has clarified that a person whose name comes second in the share certificate is deemed co-owner of the flat, and thus can contest and be part of the managing panel,“ Anand Hardikar is victim of such observations.
The M C S Act 1960 regulates all classes of cooperative societies; having profit motive or its opposite. This is not a pardonable crime of the State Legislature. The Associate Member who is in the centre of this question as per bye-laws Model 2014 is not even an Associate Member as so defined in bye-law No. 3(xxiv)(b).
Bye-laws of all Models released by Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies for housing societies do list out situations under which Associate member ceases to be so. This list does not have a situation of main member directing the housing society to remove an Associate member if he so desired.
97th Constitutional Amendment was the basis of upholding ouster of Chairman Vipul Chaudhry from Amul’s board as majority directors lost confidence in him. Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court dismissed plea of the beleaguered chairman that the neither the bye-laws of Amul nor Gujarat Cooperative societies Act empowered the board to oust the chairman even if none of the board member has confidence in the Chairman. They have to put up with the Chairman for the 5 year term. No option provided. The Apex court upheld the ouster on the rationale that those who appoint a person to any post have the right to remove him. This is a constitutional imperative of cooperative society being a democratic institution. [(2015) 42 SCD 494]
Very important statement which can apply to a person recommended by a member to a position of Associate member is as under:
“If a person has been selected to an office through democratic process, and when that person looses the confidence of the representatives who selected him, those representatives should necessarily have a democratic right to remove such an office bearer in whom they do not have confidence”
A person has been admitted tp Associate membership on the instructions of the main member. It is implicit that he can recall the instructions. If the society fail to give effect to the instructions of the main member than it is a case of a deficient service. District Consumer Court is the forum which can direct the society to remove a trespasser from the property of the society .