BABURAO L PATIL Vs. DASHRATH R PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, both the potions are taken up for hearing together. Heard all the learned Counsel at length; Shri Thorat for the petitioners; Shri Sighvi for the Sugar Factory and Shri Kerkar, AGP, for the divisional Join Registrar and the Minister for co-operation.

(2.) THESE two petitions have been filed by the members of the Gadhinglaj sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, at Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur (for short, 'sugar factory'), which is a Co-operative Sugar Factory and a Society specified as per the provisions of Section 73g of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act" ). The Sugar Factory is respondent No. 974 in Writ petition No. 4200 of 1998 and it is respondent No. 84 in Writ Petition No. 4201 of 1998. Under the impugned order, expulsion of as many as 1991 members-shareholders of the said Sugar Factory which has a total of about 9000 members, has been upheld by the Minister for Co-operation, Government of maharashtra. It is common ground before me that the election to the Managing committee of the said Sugar Factory is to be held soon this year.

(3.) AS far back as on 26th March, 1993, 2888 persons were enrolled by the said Sugar Factory as its members after their applications were scrutinised by the Committee. Out of the said 2888 members, cyclostyled notices have been issued to 2102 members calling upon them to show cause against their propose expulsion. The cyclostyled show-cause notices have been issued on 20th January, 1997. What was brought to the notice of the member proposed to be expelled was that he was enrolled as a producer member of the sugar factory under Resolution No. 11 passed in the meeting of the Board of directors held on 26th March, 1993. However, as per byelaw No. 18 of the sugar factory, it was necessary for the member to have complied with certain requirements. It was, however, found that the member had not complied with one or more of the following five requirements namely (i) no land held by him; (ii) insufficient sugar-cane land held by him; (iii) land held was in the name of some other person; (iv) no land was under cultivation of sugar cane and (v)there was some scratching and overwriting in the 7/12 extracts annexed to the application. There is a tick-mark against the relevant objection in the show cause notice sent to each member.