SURESH AGARWAL Vs. SUDHIR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions arise from the same set of facts and raise the same legal issues. It is therefore appropriate to decide them together by a single judgment.

(2.) These petitions question the order of the Cooperative Appellate Court dtd. 15/11/2025. The Appellate Court partly confirmed the order of the Cooperative Court and directed that the managing committee shall not convene any meeting or pass any resolution till the dispute is finally decided or fresh elections are held, whichever event occurs earlier.

(3.) The facts according to disputant may be stated as follows. Respondent No.1 filed Dispute No. 342 of 2024. He seeks a declaration that the managing committee elected for the term 2022 to 2027 of respondent No.11 society ceased to be validly constituted from 4/8/2024. This claim is based on the resignation of seven members on 4/8/2024. He seeks a further declaration that the strength of the managing committee must always be maintained at the sanctioned strength of 19 members. He also seeks a declaration that the strength must not fall below two third of 19 namely 13, at any point of time during the tenure. He submits that if the strength falls below this minimum, a legal stalemate occurs. According to him, such a situation amounts to a breakdown in the working of the committee and creates a vacuum in the management, which can be rectified only through an election. The disputant, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, is a member of respondent No.11 society. He had also offered himself as a candidate for the committee election for the term 2022 to 2027. The petitioners before this Court are the elected managing committee members. Opponent No.12 is the Presiding and Returning Officer appointed for the co-option meeting proposed to be held on 14/9/2024. Elections for constitution of the managing committee of respondent No.11 society for the term 2022 to 2027 were held for 19 posts. In that election, only 18 members were elected including the present petitioners. One committee member, Shri Ajay Chavan, resigned. The committee accepted his resignation in its meeting held on 10/9/2023. No further steps were taken to fill that vacancy by co-option or nomination. Out of the remaining 17 members, seven members tendered their resignation on 4/8/2024. The petitioners addressed an email to the members of respondent No.11 society on 20/8/2024. In that email they admitted that only 10 members remained on the committee and that they intended to continue to function. This admission clearly shows that the committee accepted the resignations tendered by the seven members. Even otherwise more than 30 days had elapsed since the resignations were tendered. Under Bye law 130 the resignation takes effect on expiry of one month. The seven members are not participating in the work of the society or attending meetings. Their resignations have therefore become effective in law. On 6/9/2024 the petitioners and the Presiding Officer gave notice that two members from the open category and one member from the reserved category would be co-opted on 14/9/2024. At that time the committee consisted of only 10 members. The sanctioned strength is 19. The minimum lawful strength of 13 was not available. In such a situation, the committee lacked validity in its constitution. A committee which is not validly constituted cannot convene any meeting. Any process of co-option undertaken by such a body cannot stand in law.