DEEPAK PANDITRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the earlier occasion, the Government Pleader waived notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 to 5 and 7. However, today, it is pointed out that he had no instructions to accept notice on behalf of Respondent No.7. He submits that the Petition contains allegations against Respondent No.7, for which reason the said Respondent No.7 will have to contest the same himself.

(2.) HEARD Counsel for the parties. The first question is: whether there is any infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies 'L' Ward, Mumbai dated 6th July, 2007, in exercise of powers under section 77(A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. In so far as that order is concerned, I have no hesitation in taking the view that it is rightly passed; and is the only appropriate order to be passed in the fact situation of the present case. This is so because, out of the seven elected executive members only three had executed the requisite bond, as was required in terms of Section 73(1AB) of the Act. In so far as the elected executive members, who failed to execute the bond, in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 73(1AB), they incurred automatic disqualification by operation of law. As a result, four vacancies were automatically caused in the Managing Committee consisting of seven members. It appears that the Petitioner No.2 came to be coopted by Petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 who were the other elected members of the executive committee. However, what is overlooked is that the quorum of the managing committee, as prescribed by the Bye Law is four members. In that sense, the Managing Committee could not have functioned for want of quotum (sic quorum). For that reason the co-option of Petitioner No.2 was void ab initio. The only course in such a situation was to invoke powers under section 77A of the Act to appoint administrator in respect of such Society.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Petitioners placed reliance on the decision of our High Court in the case of A.Sangameshwaram & Anr. Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai reported in 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 280 with particular emphasis on exposition in paragraph 7 of the said decision which reads thus: