INDRA RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the list of members (Annexure P-6) and for quashing the election of delegates as notified on 10.7.1996 as per Annexure P-9.

(2.) THE petitioner was a member of respondent No. 5 District Wholesale Consumer Cooperative Stores Limited, Satna. It is a registered Cooperative Society. The names of 1803 members were deleted from the register of the members of the Society as their addresses were not available or they had not paid the membership fee. According to the petitioner this was in violation of proviso to section 19-C of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 as these members were not given seven days notice, either personally or by registered post, of the proposal to expel them and were not given an opportunity to represent their case 10 the committee. There did not exist any of the grounds (a) to (d) provided in section 19-C of the Act for expulsion of the members.

(3.) THE first point for determination is whether this writ petition can be entertained in view of the alternative remedy under section 64 of the Act. It is not disputed that the termination of the membership is expulsion of the member. Section 64(1) of the Act provides that any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Society shall be referred to the Registrar. The petitioner was a member of the Society. Therefore, as per section 64(1), the dispute relating to termination of his membership could be referred by him to the Registrar. It has been held by this Court in Anant Laxman Purohit v. Indore Parasper Sahkari Bank 1977 JLJ 833 = AIR 1977 MP 217 that the question of expulsion of a member of a Society is a dispute touching the management of business of the Society within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of section 64 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner had the alternative remedy. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that section 64(2) (v) does not cover the dispute relating to the election of any delegate. This argument is not acceptable. A delegate is also an officer of the Society within the meaning of the word "officer" given in section 2(t-i) of the Act. A delegate is also elected by the Society according to its bye-laws. The dispute which has been raised by the petitioner involves a decision on questions of fact also. That disputed question is whether the petitioner or other members whose membership was terminated had given their addresses or paid the membership fee inspite of the notices published in the papers by the Society. As the petitioner had an efficacious and alternative remedy, this petition cannot be entertained. That is also ratio of the decision in Radheshyam v. Chairman 1989 RN 99 = 1989 MPLJ 208 which has been cited on behalf of the petitioner. Ordinarily the statutory remedy should be availed. It is not one of those category of cases where this Court should interfere in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.