AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—This appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C). No. 10555 of 2012. The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein, at a time when his nomination to be a member of the Managing Committee was rejected by the Returning Officer. The reason for rejection was that in his capacity as President of the Society he had taken an advance of Rs. 2,000/- on 21/5/2011 and the said amount was not repaid. In that Writ Petition the petitioners herein got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 3 and 4 and opposed the prayer of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge by his impugned judgment held that the first respondent herein is not a defaulter as contemplated under Rule 2 (d) to result in the rejection of his nomination. It is against that judgment this appeal is filed.
We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the first respondent.
The question as to whether the first respondent can be termed as a defaulter has to be resolved in the light of Rule 44 (1)(c)(i) of the Co-operative Societies Rules and Rule 2(d) thereof. Reading of these provisions show that, to be a defaulter one should be have defaulted an amount due to the society by failure to repay such amounts within the time fixed for repayment. In so far as this case is concerned, even according to the appellants, amounts received by the first respondent were towards the advance and absolutely there is no material before this Court to show that the Society had fixed any time limit for repayment of the amount. Therefore the requirement of time limit for repayment specified in Rule 2(d) is not satisfied in this case and therefore the finding of the learned Single Judge that he cannot be a defaulter warranting rejection of his nomination does not call for any interference.
The Writ Appeal fails and accordingly is dismissed.