Mrs. Noella Fernandes, Major vs Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Central Zone, Panaji, Goa

Rule, made returnable forthwith. Shri Talaulikar, the learned Additional Government Advocate waives service for respondent no.1, 2 and 7 and Mr.

Naik, the learned counsel waives service for respondent no.5 and 6. Heard finally by consent of parties.

This petition has to succeed on a short count. The election to the board of directors of the third respondent Co-operative Housing Maintainable

Society are proposed to be held and hence the first respondent Registrar of Co-operative Societies had undertaken the exercise of the preparation of

the voter's list. Rule 53 of the Goa Cooperative Societies Rules 2003 speaks of preparation of a provisional list of voters. The said rule envisages

that the provisional list of voters shall be prepared by every such society in the year in which the election of such society is due to be held. The

elections were due to be held on 21/4/2018. Admittedly, the petitioners were enrolled as members of the Society subsequent to 31/3/2017. The

cooperative year is from 1.4.2016 to 31/3/2017.

The petitioners lodged an objection before the first respondent claiming that their names should be included in the list of voters on the ground that

the elections being held in the cooperative year 2017-2018, 31/3/2017 cannot be the cut off date. The record discloses that the respondent no.2 on

9/3/2018 came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner has to be accepted and their names will have to be included in the voter's list. He

accordingly directed publication of the final list of voters including the names of the petitioners on 9/3/2018. However, subsequently on 12/3/2018, the

second respondent found that the objection raised by the petitioners cannot considered as the petitioners were enrolled as members after 31/3/2017.

The learned counsel for the petitioners apart from placing reliance on Rule 53 of the Rules has submitted that the second respondent could not have

varied the order dated 9/3/2018 without hearing the petitioner. It is undisputed that after the Registrar had come to the conclusion on 9/3/2018 that the

names of the petitioners are required to be included, there was no opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioners. However, the order was varied and

it was held that they are not entitled to be included. Thus there appears to be a clear breach of principles of natural justice in this case.

Shri Talaluikar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.2 in all fairness submits that the second respondent shall hear

the petitioner afresh and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

In such circumstances, the following order is passed:

ORDER:

(i) The petition is partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 12/3/2018 is hereby set aside.

(iii) The second respondent shall hear the petitioner or their representativeand shall decide their objection in accordance with law. The Registrar shall

also consider to hear the representative of the society or any other interested party including the respondent no.5 in accordance with law if need be.

(iii) The petitioner to remain present before the Registrar on 24/8/2018 at 10 a.m.

6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.