PRAKASH MAHADEO KHOT Vs. MARUTI DADA KHOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) The Eighth Respondent is a Cooperatives Society registered under the maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("the Act") and is a notified Society under Section 73-IC. On 7th December, 2002 an election programme was declared by the assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies for electing 13 members of the Managing committee. It appears that there was no nomination for one of the posts which had to be filled up from amongst Denotified Tribes. 12 posts were accordingly filled up. On 17th and 18th January, 2004, 7 members of the managing Committee including the four petitioners and Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7 tendered their resignations to the Secretary of the Eighth Respondent. One of the members of the Managing Committee had expired. Consequently,. only four members of the Managing Committee remained in office. On 19th January, 2004, the resignations were forwarded to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies by the Secretary of the eighth Respondent. On 27th January, 1994, the Assistant Registrar issued a notice to show cause under Section 78 of the Act and after hearing the concerned members passed an order on 6th March, 2004. The Assistant registrar noted that in the meantime respondent Nos. l, 2 and 7 had withdrawn their resignations. However, the Assistant registrar observed that there was no provision for the withdrawal of a resignation and that the resignation of each of these members had come into force immediately upon being tendered. The Assistant Registrar accordingly appointed an Administrator in place of the Managing Committee of the eighth Respondent. Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 7 preferred an appeal before the Division joint Registrar who allowed the appeal by an order dated 31st May, 2004. The Petitioners thereupon filed a revision which was dismissed on 22nd August, 2004. Both the divisional Joint Registrar and the revisional authority have concurred in holding that once the resignation was withdrawn by three members, the minimum required quorum of seven members continued to subsist and there was no reason to appoint an Administrator.

(3.) Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the tendering of a resignation in the present case has to be regarded as a unilateral act since there is no provision in the statute or in the bye-laws of the Society under which the resignation is required to be accepted. There is merit in this contention. The law is well settled. Where a resignation is a bilateral act in the sense that an acceptance of the resignation is necessary before it is effective, the person tendering resignation can withdraw it before its acceptance. Where a resignation does not require to be accepted under the governing statute or bye laws, the act of resignation is unilateral. A unilateral act comes into force immediately, if it is intended to take immediate effect or from a future date if the resignation is made effective from a prospective date. If the resignation is tendered with effect from a future date, it can be withdrawn before the date on which it takes effect.