B D SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. DT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to have made on 29-10-87 an application for admission into Mudigubba Large Sized Co-operative Society Ltd., Anantapur District. The said society was registered under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and is governed by its provisions. After the petitioner has made his application for membership he had not been told by the society whether he was admitted as a member or not. He says that on the expiry of 60 days from 29-10-87. the ought to have been treated as a member of the society and that however he was told by the Election Officer that his name was not in the electoral rolls as he was not shown to be a member of the society. The petitioner's contention is that this action of the Election Officer is illegal and that under the proviso to Section 19 (3) of the Act he ought to have been treated as a member of the society on the expiry of 60 days from the date of his application. In support of his contention the petitioner places reliance on the language of Section 19 (3) of the Act. Before we examine that contention on the basis of the language of the said proviso few relevant facts may be taken note of. A cooperative society atleast in theory, though not in practice, is a voluntary organization. Questions relating to admission to such a body are primarily of domestic concern of the society alone. In Damayanti's case (1) it was held by the Supreme Court that strangers cannot be forced upon a society. 2 Section 19 (1) of the Act declares the conditions of eligibility of an individual to become a member. It says that an individual who has attained majority and is of sound mind and who belongs to the class of persons, if any, for whom the society is formed as per its bye-laws is eligible for admission as a member. Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act does not go beyond the question of eligibility. Under sub-section (2-A) of Section 19 of the Act, such a person may become a member through the action of the Registrar also. But we are not concerned with that sub-section here. The only question with which we are concerned is whether an applicant who has the eligibility to become a member of a Cooperative Society becomes such a member merely on the lapse of 60 days for the reason that the society had not rejected his application during that period That is the contention of the petitioner for which I do not find any justification in the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 on which the petitioner relies merely says that a society shall not without sufficient cause retuse admission to membership to any person duly qualified therefor under the provisions of the Act and its bye-laws. It rejects the theory of automatic admission. Under sub-section (3) of Section 19 a Sectiety would be free not only to decide the applicant's eligibility but also would be free to reject his application for sufficient cause. Thus rejection of an application even of an eligible person shall not be found fault with provided it is for sufficient cause. Thus the theory of automatic admission does not square up with the scheme of the Act. Where admission is refused by the society either because the society holds the applicant to be ineligible or because there was sufficient cause, sub-section 3 of Section 19 requires the society to communicate such decision by registered post to such person within 15 days cf the date of decision or within 60 days from the date of his application for membership, whichever is earlier. It is on this part of Section 19 (3) the petitioner most relies upon. But I find that the above proviso to Section 19 (3) deals only with a situation where the society fails to communicate 'such a decision' taken by the society. That proviso to the sub-section reads as follows :

(2.) The argument of the petitioner is based upon the assumption that he can become a member without any such consideration and without any such resolution. It would be somewhat illogical to hold that an applicant can become a member even without his merits being considered. The society has been clothed with the power to refuse admission even to an eligible person provided its refusal is based on sufficient cause. It would be inconsistent with that scheme of the Act to grant automatic admission to an applicant on the basis of the inaction of the society. After all, an applicant so long as he is not admitted into the society, remains a stranger. He cannot be thrusted upon the society even without the society considering the question whether there are or are not sufficient reasons to refuse him admission. The language of the proviso, understood in that context, should be held to mean that the use of the words 'no such decision' is deliberate and intentional. It is not the case of the petitioner that the society has ever taken any decision on his application and that having taken such a decision, the society has failed to communicate to him such decision. The entire claim of the petitioner is for automatic admission on the basis of expiry of 60 days.

(3.) In the above view, I hold that the petitioner has not made out a claim that he has become the member of the society under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act by mere lapse of 60 days. I, therefore hold him to be a stranger to the society. For that reason it would not be his concern how well or ill the affairs of the society are managed or regulated.