MAHENDRASINH RATNASINH KARMARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner reads as under:

(2.) Facts in brief are as under:

(3.) The petitioner is the Vice President of Valiya Taluka Cooperative Purcahse and Sale Union Limited. The election to the Executive Committee of the Society was lastly held in the year 2015. As per the bye-laws, there are 19 members of the Executive Committee and one Shri Yogendrasingh Yashvantsinh Mahida is the President of the Society. It is the case of the petitioner that the Manager of the society called a meeting of the Executive Committee on 23.06.2020. Out of the 19 Committee members, two members had expired. Therefore, out of 17 existing members, 10 members moved a motion of no confidence against the President and requested the authorities to call for a meeting within a period of 30 days. The letter was addressed on 22.06.2020 by the members of the Executive Committee. The President was also informed on the same day. A request was also made to the President that the meeting that he had called on 23.06.2020 be cancelled. The case of the petitioner is that however the President proceeded to hold a meeting on 23.06.2020. On 25.06.2020 the petitioner by a letter to the Manager of the society, informed him that all the transactions being done under the Manager and the President be cancelled. On 26.06.2020, 11 members of the Executive Committee wrote to the President to call for a meeting of the Executive Committee by issuing a new agenda. The agenda included an issue to fill up vacant posts of members of the Executive Committee under Section 74(1-c)(1) of the Act. Since the President and the Manager did not act on the requests, on 28.06.2020, the petitioner took out an agenda calling a meeting on 29.06.2020. On 29.06.2020, the meeting was conducted where 11 members of the Executive Committee were present, where it was unanimously decided to fill up three vacant posts of members of the Executive Committee by co-opting three members. As the respondents remained inactive for calling the meeting for the no confidence motion, 13 members of the Executive Committee wrote a letter on 20.07.2020 to the President to call a meeting immediatley, failing which, within three days, the petitioner would be compelled to take out an agenda of the meeting. It is the case of the petitioner that since the Manager was not calling a meeting, the members sought a clarification on 29.07.2020. Ultimately, it was decided to hold a meeting on 30.07.2020 which was so held and it was informed to the petitioner that such a meeting should not be called.