AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vishal Mishra, J
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct through appropriate mandamus or any other writ/directions/orders to the respondent no. 2 to 4 to take action upon the complaints/application under Section 64 of the Act of 1960, Appeal under Section 78(1) (a) of the Act of 1960 and the representation by the petitioner society and its members.
(ii) That, a writ of Mandamus be issued directing the respondent no.3 to hold meeting/voting in terms of Section 48-C of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act read with Rule 43A of M.P. Co-operative Rules, 1960 within a period of seven days or as fixed by this Court.
(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ/order/direction in the nature certiorari and quash the paper publication/Aam Suchana (Annexure-P/20), in the interest of justice.
(iv) That, in the alternative, it be directed that the annual general meeting on 28.09.2025 and all other meetings would be presided over by the Vice President of the society or the Registrar Co-operative Society and the respondent no.5 be restrained from presiding over the annual general meeting or any other meeting of the society.
(v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court finds necessary in the interest of Justice.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is a registered housing society under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Societies Act, 1960 '). Respondents No.2 and 3 in violation of relevant provisions of the Societies Act, 1960 and bye-laws are overlooking the misconducts, illegal acts, unauthorized and illegal meetings held by respondent No.5. Therefore, he has moved an application before the Registrar under Section 64 of the Societies Act, 1960 duly signed by several other members and prayed that the Registrar to look into the matter and decide the complaint/ application made by them. It is further prayed that in terms of Section 48-C of Societies Act, 1960 read with Rule 43-A of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, respondent No.3 be directed to hold a meeting under the supervision. It is argued that respondent No.5 has issued notices for calling the Annual General Meeting without issuing proper notices as required under the Societies Act, 1960. He has placed reliance upon Section 49 of the Societies Act, 1960, wherein notices are to be served within 14 days and it is the mandatory condition. It is argued before this Court that respondent No.5 is carrying out and supporting commercial activities in residential plots and objections taken by the members of the Society are not taken care of, therefore a complaint is made to the Registrar which has not been dealt with. The Agendas which are put forth by respondent No.5 does not deal with any of the issues relating to commercial activities which are being carried out as their own interests are involved in the matter. It is argued that on the complaint made by the petitioners, the matter has already travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein in SLP (Civil) No. 4334-4335 of 2005 vide order dated 14/02/2025, it is already observed that there shall be no further construction in any part of the society for any commercial purpose but despite of the same, the said commercial activities are not being stopped. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 8 & 9 of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bahorilal Rambharose Gupta Vs. Keshav Prasad Ayodhya Prasad Dubey and others decided on 04/05/1962 in M.P. No.129 of 1962, dealing with the issuance of 15 days notice for meeting as prescribed by the bye-laws and same being a mandatory provision.
Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has taken a preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of this petition on the ground that lis is sub judice before respondents No.2 and 4 which is admitted by petitioner himself in paragraphs 5.14 to 5.20 of the Writ Petition. They have further challenged the locus standi of the petitioner on the ground that the Resolution of Managing Committee dated 21/09/2024 has been relied upon for filing the Writ Petition. It is argued that petitioner has no authority to file the petition as no Resolution is granted in his favour to initiate such proceedings. Respondent No.5 is still holding the post of President of Society, therefore without having a proper Resolution, petitioner is having not authority to file this petition showing himself to be the Vice-President of the Society. Earlier Writ Petition which was filed as W.P. No.29833/2024 in the name of Purusharthi Co-operative Housing Society Vs. State of M.P. and Others, was disposed of on 26/09/2024 with following directions:-
"3. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the following observations:
(i) Petitioner shall raise a dispute under Section 64 of Cooperative Societies Act before Deputy Registrar/Authority In-charge of the post of Deputy Registrar latest by tomorrow positively prior to 02:30 p.m.
(ii) Petitioner, Respondents Nos.4 and 5 as well as any other person who is interested in dispute shall also appear before the Deputy Registrar/Person In-charge of the post of Deputy Registrar at 02:30 p.m.
(iii) Deputy Registrar/Authority In-charge of the post of Deputy Registrar shall take up the matter for grant of interim relief, and shall try to decide the said relief by tomorrow itself.
It is submitted by Shri Sahani that petitioner has already approached Joint Registrar as well as Deputy Registrar and he was informed that they cannot adjudicate the dispute for the reason that authority competent to take up the issue is not available. Therefore, it is directed that in case if Deputy Registrar/Person In-charge of the post of Deputy Registrar is of the view that he is not competent to take up the issue of interim relief, then he shall pass the order accordingly.
It is made clear that till the prayer for interim relief is decided, no AGM shall take place.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of."
5 . In pursuance to said directions, petitioner as well as respondent No.5 pursued two separate dispute applications; one filed in the name of the Society seeking a direction to act upon the complaints so also the representations regarding malfunctioning of the Society and prohibiting convening of the AGM and another filed by respondent No.5 challenging his removal from the post of President of the society before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur. The Deputy Registrar has taken up both the matters in analogous hearing and vide order dated 04/10/2024 denied interim relief in favour of the petitioner but granted interim protection to respondent No.5 by staying his removal Resolution and permitting him to continue as President of the Society till the final adjudication of the dispute. The said dispute is still pending consideration, therefore respondent No.5 is still holding the post of President and in terms of interim direction given by Deputy Registrar, he is still functioning as President of the Society. Therefore, petitioner is having no locus to file this petition based upon the resolution passed in the year 2024. Section 49 of the Societies Act, 1960 provides for holding of Annual General Meeting which are statutory provisions and respondent No.5 being a President of the Society is duty bound to comply with provisions. He has further relied upon Rule 43-A of M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 which deals with the removal of any office bearer of the Society and provides that meeting is required to be summoned which would be presided by Registrar, Co-operative Societies and an office bearer can be removed in such meeting only by a Resolution passed by 2/3rd majority. However, in the present case, neither any meeting was ever called for specifying this agenda nor any information was provided. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has further pointed out that the petitioner has suppressed material information from this Court and has not approached the Court with clean hands. This case is having a chequered history, therefore, all the factual aspects should have been brought to the notice of the Court which unfortunately has not been done by the petitioner. Therefore, for suppressing the material information from the Court, the petition should be dismissed at the threshold. He has drawn attention of this Court to Section 48 of the Societies Act, 1960 which deals with the final authority in society as well as Section 49 of the Societies Act, 1960 which provides for holding of Annual General Meeting within a period of six months from the close of the financial years. Respondent No.5 being a President of the Society has issued Agenda for holding of Annual General Meeting (AGM) which is put to challenge by filing a petition. It is pointed out that there was a resolution passed by the petitioner along with other 4-5 members regarding removal of respondent No.5 from the post of President which was put to challenge by respondent No.5 by filing an Appeal, wherein interim relief has been granted in favour of respondent No.5. The said Appeal is still pending consideration. The interlocutory order was subsequently challenged by petitioner by filing Second Appeal which is also pending consideration. Petitioner has not disclosed these facts in the Writ Petition. He has merely come up before the Court just to stop the Annual General Meeting for which notices were duly issued by respondent No.5 and was circulated in two local newspapers as required under the bye-laws. Therefore, the requirement for issuance of notice through newspaper has already been carried out by respondent No.5, therefore no infirmity is being done by respondent No.5. Just to settle the personal scores as petitioner is not in good relation with respondent No.5, therefore he does not want to get the Annual General Meeting to be held on any date. Even the information with respect to holding of Annual General Meeting is given to the Registrar and he is asked to accompany in the Annual General Meeting or to send his representative. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.5 is not working properly. Under these circumstances, this Writ Petition is not maintainable, therefore he prays for dismissal of the petition.
I.A. No.19029/2025, an application for intervention in the matter, is filed on behalf of Deepak Kumar Rijhwani, Pankaj Sethi, Ashwani Sethi and Sanjeev Lal, pointing out that allegations are levied against them by the petitioner and they have not been impleaded as party in the Writ Petition. They are necessary party to the petition, therefore they are required to be arrayed as respondents in the matter. For other submissions, they have adopted the arguments advanced by learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The record indicates that it is an admitted position that the matter pertaining to removal of respondent No.5 by petitioners is pending adjudication before the Deputy Registrar and he has granted interim relief in favour of respondent No.5 vide order dated 04/10/2024 permitting the respondent No.5 to continue as President of the Society till final adjudication of the matter. Petitioner has approached the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by filing an application seeking relief that no Annual General Meeting be conducted till final decision is taken by Deputy Registrar. The record further indicates that petitioner has shown himself to be the acting President of Society in terms of Resolution dated 21/09/2024 which was put to challenge before the Deputy Registrar and interim relief was granted on 04/10/2024. Therefore, petitioner is not an acting President of the Society. In terms of order passed by Deputy Registrar, respondent No.5 is the President of the society.
By way of this petition, petitioner wants a relief that the Annual General Meeting which is required to be conducted in terms of the provisions of the Societies Act, 1960 should not be conducted under the leadership of respondent No.5 and Registrar should be the authority to preside over the meeting as certain illegalities regarding commercial activities being carried out in residential area for which respondent No.5 has never proposed any agenda for stopping any such activities owing to his personal interest.
However, the fact remains that respondent No.5 has issued a notice for holding of Annual General Meeting in terms of provisions of the Act of 1960. The requirement in terms of bye-laws is a notice to be issued by ordinary mode and publication to be made in two local newspapers which has been carried out by respondent No.5 as demonstrated in the return filed by him. He has also issued letter to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to either participate in the said Annual General Meeting or to send his representative to attend the Annual General Meeting, therefore the requirement in terms of the bye-laws is fulfilled by respondent No.5.
It is further pointed out that Writ Petition No.27993/2024 filed by the Pursharthi Co-operative Housing Society is pending before this Court, wherein vide order dated 19/09/2024, an interim relief was granted to the extent that no new commercial activity shall be permitted henceforth in the petitioner society.
Once the matter is already pending adjudication before this Court with respect to commercial activities being carried out in the petitioner society wherein such activities have been stopped, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
As far as withholding of Annual General Meeting or in alternative to be presided by Registrar is concerned, as respondent No.5 has already pointed out that they have issued information to the Registrar to attend the AGM and information for the same has already been published in two newspapers. The requirement in terms of the Act and bye-laws has already been fulfilled, therefore there is no requirement of passing any order in the matter for directing the Registrar to preside over the meeting. It is within the domain and jurisdiction of the Registrar whether or not to attend or preside over the meeting. The meeting is to be presided by the President in terms of relevant provisions of the Societies Act, 1960.
Section 49(2), (3) and (4) of the Societies Act, 1960 is relevant, which reads as under:-
Annual General Meeting.- (1) xxx
(2) Notice of such meeting shall be sent to such officer who has been vested with the power of registration of the society at least fourteen clear days before the date of the meeting.
(3) The Registrar or such officer who has been delegated the power of registration of society may himself attend such meeting or depute any officer subordinate to him to attend it.
(4) The Registrar or such officer who has been delegated the power of registration of society shall have the right to address the meeting in respect of any matter pertaining to the subjects specified in clauses (a), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1)."
In pursuance to the aforesaid provisions, the information to the Registrar has already been sent by respondent No.5 and paper publications have already been made. Notices have been sent 14 days prior to holding of Annual General Meeting.
Therefore, once the conditions prescribed under Section 49 of the Societies Act, 1960 are fulfilled, no directions can be issued that the meeting should be presided by the Registrar as Section 49 of the Societies Act, 1960 itself provides that he may himself attend such meeting or depute any officer subordinate to him to attend the same. As information has already been sent by respondent No.5 to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, no direction can be issued as prayed in the Writ Petition. As the matter is pending adjudication before respondents No.2 and 4 as well as pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not deem it appropriate to entertain the Writ Petition.
The petition sans merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.