KARAN SINH BHADAURIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is President of Bhind Co-operative Marketing Society. He presided over a meeting held on 5-11-1995. The agenda for this meeting was circulated. This agenda was so circulated on 30-9-1995. There is no dispute with circulation of the agenda and also with regard to holding of the meeting. What has happened is that after passing three resolutions, the petitioner chose to adjourn the meeting. The language used is that for unavoidable reasons, the meeting is, adjourned. After making of the above note, the petitioner appears to have left the meeting. However, the remaining members chose to continue with the meeting and passed several resolutions. One of those resolutions is at S. No.13, By this resolution, it was resolved that all housing societies would cease to be members of respondent No.2 Society, as a consequence of which the housing societies were to be removed from the membership of respondent No.2. It is this part of the resolution which is being challenged under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The argument advanced is that after the Chairman of the meeting had adjourned the meeting, the remaining members could not transact any other business. The other argument is that even if they could transact the business, only that agenda that was circulated could be considered and the consideration of such items which were not parts of the agenda was not appropriate. The relevant section which deals with the holding of the meeting is S.49. The Committee has further framed bye-laws. Under bye-law 27, the meeting is to be presided over by the President of the Society. As to what are the rights of a person who is Chairman of the meeting or is presiding in a meeting was subject-matter of consideration before the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deodutt Sharma v. Z.A. Zaid, AIR 1960 Rajasthan 25. It was held that the Chairman cannot act arbitrarily and he cannot adjourn the meeting without any rhyme or reason. If he does so, then the remaining members can continue the business and they can pass resolutions with regard to all those matters which are there, on the agenda. The relevant conclusions have been summarised in para 51 of the Report. These are as under :

(2.) However, something is to be said in favour of the petitioner. This is with regard to consideration of the matter which was not there on the agenda. When the Chairman leaves the meeting, then only those matters which were already there on the agenda should be taken into consideration. Consideration of any other matter outside the agenda would not be proper because there would be no notice of this to the members would left the meeting and who would not be present in the meeting. For this reason, the resolution by which the housing societies have been removed from the membership of the Society cannot be sustained.

(3.) This petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Amount of security be refunded to the petitioner.Petition allowed.