1.I own a flat in a co-operative housing society in Mumbai ( Maharashtra) jointly with my wife whose name is first in the Agreement For Sale and my name is second.
2.The share certificate is also issued by the society with both names as appearing in the Agreement For sale.
3.At the time of purchase of the flat in 2007, joint Application for Membership was taken by the developer mentioning the names of Applicants in the same order as appearing the Agreement For Sale. This application in original, (as admitted by the society and produced as exhibit during the proceedings held before the Dy. Reg.) is already on the files of the society.
4.I have also paid Share Application Money of Rs. 250.00 for five shares of Rs. 50.00 each and Rs. 200.00 towards Membership Fees for both of us @ Rs. 100.00 each, receipt of which is recorded in the Agreement. The Sale Agreement dated 28.12.2007 is a registered and stamp duty paid document based on which society issued a share certificate dated 30.11.2008.
5.Yet, in November, 2014 after seven years of being a member the Managing Committee vindictively and maliciously informed my wife in writing that I am not a member and forbade me from attending any future meetings of the society.
6.A complaint was lodged with Dy Reg. in December, 2014 under plain letter of complaint wherein many other concerns of mismanagement and illegalities were also included. The said complaint is still pending. However, I was advised to file an Appeal under section 23 for the membership part which I did. In the said appeal I had categorically mentioned that :
Ø I am already Joint/Associate member since about 2007-2008,
Ø my name appears in both the agreement and the share certificate
Ø Have paid entrance Fees and Share Application Money (during the proceedings I also produced a receipt of the Developer in this regard)
Ø The Managing Committee has vindictively and maliciously de-recognised or cancelled my membership without any lawful reason, without any notice and without following due process of law.
Ø Had prayed for an order holding that I already am a member and directing the MC to allow me to attend the meetings as per the law.
7.But the Dy. Registrar has, in a clear case of misuse/abuse of authority and without adducing any reasons held that the application of Associate Membership is rejected.
8.I have lodged a Revision Application with the Jt. Divisional Registrar as provided under the Act/Manual and am awaiting admission thereof.
I have to request you to:
(i) please let me have your expert guidance in this matter so that I am able to pursue this matter properly and in a lawfully laid down manner. Since the matter is already sub-judice, as it were, I am willing to share with you the required papers and documents to enable you to give me the said opinion.
(ii) As for other instances of Mismanagement and illegal acts, the DR is not taking any action despite, giving the MC an illegal opportunity of filing their REPLY ALL OVER AGAIN. I have also kept the Hon’ble Commissioner and Registrar, Honb’le Minister for co-operation, about such inaction and about illegal and extra-procedural actions of the DR but have not heard anything from them nor is there any development in the matter of my complaints. I need your guidance as to my further course of action to bring about change of attitude on the part of DR.
I C Naik
I was thinking a lot about the conduct of the managing committee which created a situation for Mr. Pramod Divecha,(Mumbai) the Associate Member (2nd name on share certificate and in Flat Purchase agreement too). There, I received another extreme situation of the Associate Membership from Dr Anand Hardikar(Pune). I have already sent my response to for Dr Anand Hardikar’s question. He was aghast at the inability of the absence of a power to the Main member to withdraw the Associate membership which conferred by the Committee upon the main member’s request and upon payment of entrance fee of Rs 10/100 [No name in the flat purchase agreement]. If put to judicial test (like de-reognition of Ex-Rulers by Mrs Indira Gandhi) it would have been the case that “what a member can do should have an inherent right of undoing.”
Both the cases pertain to cessation of Associate Membership of a CHS.
In fact the situations under which Associate membership can come to an end are quite a few besides resignation namely as listed in the registered bye-laws of every CHS. These are : (i) cessation of the membership of the main member.(ii) Resignation by the Associate Member. (iii) Death of the Associate Member. The MCS Act 1960 does not expressly provide for termination of Associate Membership.
The MCS Act 1960 does empower a cooperative society to expel its member as provided U/S 35 by resolution passed by not less than three-fourths majority for acts which are detrimental to the interest or proper working of the society. This resolution comes in to effect upon approval thereof by the Registrar. Elaboration of circumstances for expulsion and steps to be taken by the society are stated in Rules 28/29 and registered bye-laws of the society. These are required to be strictly adhered to as otherwise the resolution could be rejected by the Registrar. Dr Anand Hardikar’s question was answered in the negative as there is no power given to the main member to request the society to expel the Associate member, unless a writ is resorted to in the High Court. Here it can be assumed that expulsion of Associate member is also feasible by completing this procedure.
Reverting to Pramod Divecha’s discomfort he has two issues. While trying to stop the perceived mismanagement in the society, he seems to have invited the wrath of the Committee as evidenced by his statement “The Managing Committee has vindictively and maliciously de-recognized or cancelled my membership without any lawful reason, without any notice and without following due process of law.”
Pramod Divecha approached Dy Registrar to direct the MC to allow him to attend the meetings as per the law and other concerns of mismanagement and illegalities were also included. Dy. Registrar has, without adducing any reasons held that the application of Associate Membership is rejected. There was no question of making application as he was already an Associate member.
Both these cases are new dimensions to the sheer confusion about Associate membership with in cooperative societies departmental regime.
The sole reason is lethargy of members.
Section 24 read with Rule 8(2) empower the members of the society to prescribe the following in respect of Associate members in its Bye-Laws :
- Such privileges and rights and liabilities as members may confer (Sec 24)
- Under Rule 8 (2)
- the circumstances under which withdrawal from membership may be permitted and
- the procedure to be followed in cases of withdrawal, ineligibility and death of members;
The housing societies are well advised to amend the Bye-Laws to permit main member to change Associate member like changing the nominee.
As for mismanagement it is not possible to fight the Committee single handedly. Unless some more members ( at least 20% Bye-Law No 96) also share a view of mismanagement with equal concerns, it is practically impossible to remove mismanagement.