RAMCHANDRA FATTUJI GEDAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dtd. 17/03/2010, passed by the DDR, the order dtd. 09/07/2010, passed by the Divisional Jt. Registrar and the order dtd. 30/6/2015, passed by the respondent No.1 in revision, all of which uphold the expulsion of the petitioners from the membership of the respondent No.4-Society. Mr. Chahande, learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that no notice of the meeting dtd. 13/8/2009, was issued and therefore, the expulsion, was in violation of the requirement of proviso to Sec. 35(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 28 of the Rules framed thereunder. He submits, that in order to substantiate this position, since it is contended by the respondent No.4-Society, that the petitioners were present in the meeting of the Society the report of handwriting expert is placed on the record in this petition (page 178). He therefore, submits, that the impugned orders, which uphold the expulsion are required to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) Mr.Chopde, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 supports the impugned orders and contends, that the very presence of the petitioners in the general body meeting dtd. 13/08/2009, would indicate that notices were duly served upon the petitioners and therefore, this plea is not available to them and has rightly been decided by the authorities below. He further submits, that since the report of the handwriting expert dtd. 25/12/2015, was not before the authorities below, the orders passed by them, therefore, cannot be questioned on the basis of this report, apart from which the report would require evidence to be led on account of which the same cannot be considered.

(3.) It is not in dispute, that the petitioners were the members of the respondent -Society, which had laid a layout on the land of Kh.No.173/1, 2, which was an unauthorized layout in which Plot No.11 admeasuring 450 sq.mtr. was transferred to the petitioner No.1 under the sale deed dtd. 26/8/2003 (page 34) and the plot No.10 admeasuring 450 sq.mtr. was sold to the petitioner No.2 by the sale deed of the same date (page 38). Both the sale deeds, contain a clause to the effect that the municipal taxes and the development charges upon the development of the plot, was to be paid by the petitioners. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, which is the development body, made a demand of Rs.28,86,517.00, for the development of the layout, as a result of which, a demand notice of Rs.1,59,152.00, was sent to each of the petitioners on 23/10/2006, which was replied by them stating that they were not liable for any such demand. The reminder sent by the Society on 17/03/2006, also met with the said reply. It is in pursuance to such refusal, that the respondent No.5 - Society issued a communication on 20/7/2009, intimating the petitioners, that in case the development charges of their share was not paid, the Society would be constrained to cancel their membership as well as the sale deeds. This is an admitted position, as spelt out from para 9 of the dispute under Sec. 91 of the Act filed by the petitioners before the Co-operative dispute No.679/2009 (page 161).