New Shivani Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs State of Haryana and Others

Alok Singh, J.—Undisputedly, respondent No. 3 was expelled from the membership of the society on 11.12.2005 vide proceedings

(Annexure P/8) on the ground that respondent No. 3 had failed to deposit remaining Rs. 3,75,000/- along with interest despite valid notice. Having

acquired knowledge about the cancellation of the membership (expulsion), respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal u/s 114 of the Haryana Co-

operative Societies Act, 1984, before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, which was allowed vide impugned order dated

30.10.2008, having observed expulsion/cancellation of membership was never got approved from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies as

required under bye-laws 9(A) and 9(B) of the petitioner - Society. Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Financial

Commissioner vide order dated 03.02.2010.

Undisputedly, earlier son of respondent No. 3, namely, Samir Batra, was the member of the Society and respondent No. 3 thereafter acquired

the membership by transfer of the shares of her son in her favour in the year 2004. As per schedule, the price of the flat was Rs. 14 lacs while

respondent No. 3 had already paid Rs. 15,90,000/- and thereafter, had sent cheque of Rs. 3,25,000/- which was received by the petitioner -

Society on 01.01.2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that membership of respondent No. 3 was cancelled on two grounds i.e. (i)

nonpayment of balance amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- and (ii) because respondent No. 3 had filed false affidavit before the Society that her husband is

not having any property in any society while her husband has already been allotted flat by the Army Housing Welfare Organization in Gurgaon.

I have carefully perused the proceedings (Annexure P/8). From the perusal of Annexure P/8, I find that membership of respondent No. 3 was

cancelled for non-payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- despite notice. There is no whisper in proceedings (Annexure P/8) that the

membership is being cancelled on account of any false affidavit. It seems that in order to justify the cancellation, the petitioner is setting up a new

case.

Bye-laws 9(A) and 9(B) of the petitioner - Society read as under:-

9(A) - A member may be expelled from the Society by the vote of not less than three-fourth of the members present subject to the approval of

R.C.S. and voting at a general meeting of the Society on a motion that in the opinion of the meeting such member has:

i) willfully deceived the society by false statement;

ii) has been bankrupt;

iii) being criminally conducted of an offence involving moral turpitude.

9-B - The Committee shall give a member 30 days written notice of the proposal to expel him. The members explanation, if any shall be placed

before the general meeting for consideration.

Perusal of Bye-law 9(A) reveals that expulsion shall be subject to approval of Registrar, Co-operative Societies. No material is placed before

me to say that Registrar, Co-operative Societies has accorded any approval to the expulsion of respondent No. 3. Learned Registrar, Co-

operative Societies seems to be justified in observing that any expulsion without his approval is nonest. Moreover, it would be arbitrary and

unjustified and against the principle of equity to expel a member who has already deposited about Rs. 15,90,000/- (as observed by respondent

No. 1 in the order dated 03.02.2010, annexure P-12) while as per the schedule of the price, cost of the flat is Rs. 14 lacs. Record reveals that

respondent No. 3 thereafter also tried to make payment of the amount demanded by the petitioner - society which was said to be refunded by the

petitioner - society saying that amount tendered by respondent No. 3 was after the expulsion. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I

am not inclined to exercise my writ jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Financial

Commissioner/Principal Secretary. Petitioner-Society is duty bound to allot the flat to respondent No. 3 after receiving rest of the amount if

outstanding from respondent No. 3.

Dismissed.