NITIN SADASHIV MENER Vs. MAHIM VIVIDH KARYAKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Divisional Joint Registrar on 6.4.1998 and 29.8.2000. By these orders, it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled to be a member of respondent No. 1 society.

(2.) The petitioner applied for membership of the respondent society on 15.10.1997. This application was filed in consonance with the Bye-laws of the respondent society. All the pre-requisites for becoming a member alongwith the application had been complied according to the petitioner. However, this application was rejected on 19.12.1997 by the respondent society, on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the 7/12 extract of his land. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 19.1.1998 under section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before the Assistant Registrar challenging the decision of the society. The petitioner contended that he was a farmer and therefore, wanted to sell his agricultural produce through respondent No. 1 society. The Society admitted the petitioner as a nominal member on 11.3.1998 and not as a full-fledged member. The petitioner therefore prosecuted the appeal filed by him before the Assistant Registrar. On 6.4.1998, the Assistant Registrar rejected his appeal on the ground that he had not produced the 7/12 extract of his land, which according to the Assistant Registrar, was a pre-requisite for accepting the petitioner as a member of the respondent No. 1 society. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Joint Registrar met with the same fate. The petitioner has therefore, approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid orders.

(3.) Mr. Desai appearing for the petitioner contends that the Bye-laws do not in any manner prescribe that a person who wishes to be a member of the society must produce the 7/12 extract of his property. He draws my attention to Bye-law No. 4 of respondent No. 1 society wherein a person who is a farmer and complies with the stipulations contained in Bye-law No. 5 is entitled to be a member of the society. He submits that the stipulations contained in Bye-law No. 5 have been complied by the petitioner. He has also produced the 7/12 extract of the land owned by his father. The learned Advocate submits that both the authorities have erred in refusing membership to the petitioner on the ground that he had not produced the 7/12 extract of the property when that was not a pre-condition for being admitted as a member of the society.