By I C Naik
Courtesy the CHS-WELFARE-ASSOCIATION (JEBY) I came in to possession of a soft copy of an English translation of the Dismissal Order of three members of the Committee of an Estate Premises Co Op. Society in Western Sub-urgan District, Mumbai. The order was issued after hearing a complaint of Mr. A a member of the society and a written statement of the society which the DE dismissed as contrary to Z, the managing committee members, from the committee of ABC Estate Premises Cooperative Society ltd,. xxxxxxxx Mumbal 40006S (identity withheld to save embarrassment).
ORDER In exercise of the power conferred upon me, as per Section 78A(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 1960, l J.D. Patil the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, (K-East) WARD, Mumbal, hereby remove Mr. X, (2} Mr, Y (3] Mr. Z the managing committee members, from the committee of ABC Estate Premises Cooperative Society ltd,. Mumbal 40006S.
Before passing the order under our discussion, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (the DR) reasoned out his decision in these words: “I am of the firm view that considering the definition of Associate member as per Section 2(19} of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies {Amended} Act, 2013 and as per provisions of Section 27(2) and 27(8) and Bylaw No. 3xxiv the members of the managing committee (1) Mr. xxxx Secretary, (2) Mr. xxx and (3 J Mr. xxx the managing committee members who became the managing committee members by paying Rs.lOO/-, should be removed from the managing committee.” This is an integrated effect of these three provisions as above.
Through this brief order the DR has recognized the same confusion which was created by the Hon, SCEA (https://www.indiancooperative.com/cooperative-coffee-shop/hon-scea-please-guide-chs-do-not-confuse/ ).
The DR has taken no pains to reach a firm view as aforesaid. Three unfortunate Associate members got their individual names entered after member number 1 on respective share certificate paying Rs 100/- which conferred them the status of Associates as defined U/S 2(19). Section 27(2) limits their rights to just voting in general body meeting where their respective original tnumber 1 was absent. But 27(8) is all about nominal members “(8) No nominal member shall have the right to vote and no such member shall be eligible to be a member of a committee or for appointment as a representative of the society on any other society.
Now There remains an shocking rationale of breach of Bye-Law No [3 xxiv(b)] of the Model (CHS) Bye-Laws 2014. As per this recommendatory Model Associate member of CHS must be joint owner of the flat. The DR is unaware of the fact that Model (Estate Premises) Bye-Laws 2014 have not been issued. Reference to Bye-Laws which are not the registered bye-laws of the concerned cooperative society does not carry sense as that cooperative society is governed by its own registered bye-laws which are in force. Per Section 2(5)”by-laws” means by-laws registered under this Act and for the time being in force and includes registered amendments of such by-laws” Registered means not registered by any cooperative society but registered by the concerned society. The DR has relied on Bye-Law No 3xxiv of CHS and that too just a recommendatory Model and has no force in law.
Another legal provision tumbled upon by the DR is that Sub-Section 1 of Section 78A, prescribes:
(1) Giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, (to the three members) and
(2) Consultation with the Federal society to which the society is affiliated
In discussion part of the order the DR has recorded that “the show cause notice was issued to the society to file its oral or written statement. The society filed its written statement on 9 6 2015. The DR ruled that “ the written statement filed by the Society is contrary[1] to the provisions of the Act and the Bylaws” The DR saw no necessity to record the gist of the statement and hence lost sight of explaining why he gave his ruling against the society.
The DR has to pass one more obstacle. The last Provison to Sub-Section 1 of Section 78A reads as under namely: Provided also that, nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a society, where there is no Government shareholding or loan or financial assistance in terms of any cash or kind or any guarantee by the Government. The Estate premises cooperative societies are generally not resorting to government aid as one can safely guess. This calls for other section under which the DR could entertain the complaint of a member and remove the three members from the managing committee. If no provision is found obviously the DR acted beyond his authority and statutory power and the dismissal order per se is void.
Expect some more light on the confusion in Part 2