THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.A.NO.144 OF 2007; 809 of 2007; 798 of 2007 and W.A.No. 1610 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per T.Meena Kumari, J) Since all the above appeals are arising out of the order dated 04.1.2007, passed in W.P. No. 25165 of 2005, the matters are being heard together and disposed of together by a common judgment. 1. This writ appeal No. 144 of 2007 is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court passed in WP No.25165 of 2005, dated 4.1.2007. 2. The Voltas Employees Co-operative Housing Society represented by its Secretary, the 5th respondent in the above writ petition, being aggrieved against the direction given by the learned single Judge that the Society, which was existing as on 3-10-1996, shall consider the membership of 37 new members after putting them on notice and after hearing them, preferred the present writ appeal. 3. It was averred before the learned single Judge that the appellant society was formulated in the year 1981 with 28 members as the founder members of the said Society. On 24-4-1996, 37 persons had submitted applications seeking admission into the society, and as their admission was rejected, they approached the 2nd respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the 2nd respondent through his proceeding dated 25-9-1996 directed admission of those members and accordingly a provisional admission was made on 4-10-1996. It was also stated that pursuant to the proceedings of 1st respondent dated 17-4-1997, 2nd respondent through his proceedings dated 01-12-1998 has withdrawn the proceedings dt.25-9-1996. Challenging the said proceedings of 2nd respondent, a writ petition was filed in WP No.3720 of 1999 but the same was dismissed. Against the dismissal of above writ petition, a writ appeal in WA No.1056 of 1999 was filed, wherein, a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 2-8-1999 held that “…….it is left open to the society to decide with respect to the membership of the petitioner-appellant on merits, in accordance with law and without taking into consideration the instructions issued by the Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and after hearing the appellant.” 4. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 22-12-2004 and 25-4-2005 authorizing the 3rd respondent therein to hold a General Body meeting to decide the issue of membership in pursuance of the direction given by this court in W.A. No. 1056 of 1999 and W.P. No. 18294 of 1999 and accordingly 3rd respondent issued notice dated 5-5-2005, convening a general body meeting of the members, who are on rolls of the society as on 3-10-1996. Based on the said notice the 3rd respondent conducted a general body meeting on 22-5-2005. But according to new members, who are styling themselves as members, the meeting held on 22-5-2005 is not in accordance with law and the same has no legal sanctity. 5. Before the learned single Judge, a counter was filed stating that by virtue of the order of Division Bench in W.A.No.1056 of 1999 dated 2.8.1999 the general body meeting was held on 30-9-2001 and discussions were held about the membership issue of 37 members and it was resolved that the society has no dispute with regard to the issue of admission of 37 members as their admission was ratified by the general body in its meeting held on 4.4.97. But the said resolution was challenged by one P S. Rajan in WP No. 21283 of 2002 and the same was dismissed. However, by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in WP No. 24287/2003 dated 21.12.2003 a direction was issued to 3rd respondent i.e., 2nd respondent herein, to look into the comprehensive representation, which was directed to be filed by the petitioners before 2nd respondent and if necessary, to initiate action under the provisions of Section 51 of the Act. 6. It was also stated in the counter that contrary to the directions issued in W.P. No. 24287 of 2003, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dt. 2- 4-2004, 22-12-2004, 25-4-2005 authorizing the Sub-Divisional Co- operative Officer, Secunderabad, to conduct general body meeting securing entire records pertaining to the membership issue from the President, though he was not the authority, who was supposed to decide the matter. Though the 4th respondent on 22-5-2005 called for a general body meeting, but as he did not conduct any meeting on the said date and therefore 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 4-6-2005 stating that there is no legal sanctity of the alleged meeting held on 22-5-2005. The respondent No.3 was directed, by virtue of the orders in W.P.No. 24287 of 2003, to take a decision on the issue, disposed of the comprehensive representation vide his order date 27-11-2006 after considering all the aspects of the matter by holding that the plea to convene a general body meeting with the members prior to 3-10-1996 is not acceptable and no membership issue is left open to be decided by the society. It was also stated in the counter that since the petitioners also present in the general body meeting on 4-4-1997 and approved the admission of said 37 members, they cannot raise any objection with regard to the membership issue and the writ petition is devoid of merits. 7. It was contended before the learned single Judge that the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1056 of 1999 which was filed against the orders passed in W.P. No. 3720 of 1999 dealt with the expulsion of the membership of 37 members but it did not deal with the admission of membership of the petitioners. It was also contended that the general body meeting purported to have been conducted by the founder members on 22-5-2005 was not presided over by an Officer authorized to do so, and therefore any resolution passed on 22-5-2005 cannot be taken into consideration and will not have any bearing as to the admission of membership of 37 new members. The issue as to admission of 37 new persons is not yet settled and the orders have to be passed in accordance with the findings arrived at in WA 1056 of 1999 and any orders passed in the meanwhile are non-est in the eye of law. 8. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents placing reliance upon the Proceedings dated 27.11.2006 of 2nd respondent contended before the learned single judge that the plea of convening of general body meeting with members prior to 3-10-1996 is not acceptable and no membership issue is left to be decided by the society and accordingly the disposal of the comprehensive representation would not have any effect on the disposal of the writ petition. 9. After hearing the rival contentions, learned Single Judge observed that the order passed in W.A. No.1056 of 1999 was not properly construed and decision was not taken, the said Proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 27.11.2006 will not have any effect for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition and therefore the learned single Judge directed that the Society, which was existing as on 03-10-1996, shall consider the membership of the 37 new members after putting them on notice and after hearing them. Learned Judge also upheld the Proceedings dt. 4-6-2005 passed by the 2nd respondent. 10. The counsel on either side has reiterated their contentions as raised in the writ petition. Heard and perused the material available on record. The impugned order of the learned single judge goes to show that many of the writ petitions have been filed by the members claiming that they have been admitted into the membership of the Society and the learned single Judge passed the order relying on the order passed by the Division Bench in WA 1056 of 1999 i.e., WP No.18294/99 followed by WP No. 24287/03. As seen from the record, it is to be noted that the general body of the Society has conducted the meeting as per the bye-law of the society and the said order has become final and more so a conditional one that the membership of new members will be considered, if any second venture is taken up by the society and as no second venture was taken up by the society, the learned single Judge is perfectly right in coming to the conclusion that the judgment of the Division Bench dealt with only with regard to the membership of the 37 new members and hence we do not find any reason to set aside the impugned order and therefore the present writ appeal No.144 of 2007 is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. WPMP No.2325 of 2009: 11. The petitioners herein filed the present petition praying the court to permit them to come on record as proposed respondent Nos. 11 to 14 in the above writ appeal No.144 of 2007. 12. It is stated in the affidavit that the first petitioner was admitted into the Society on 2-5-2007, 2nd petitioner on 20-4-2001, 3rd petitioner on 23- 2-2001 and 4th petitioner on 18-9-2007. It is also stated that the society is meant for welfare of employees who would like to become members of the society and that when the founder members of the Society, upon the instructions of the Deputy Registrar, admitted 37 new members into the society, and as the dispute is settled long back, now the Society cannot take a different stand. It is also stated that the observations made by the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1056 of 1999 provides that it is only the Society that can decide the fate of the new members. The society is still having such facilities to expand their horizon to accommodate not only all the members but also the prospective members from Voltas Company but is not expanding in admitting new members. It is further stated that since they are appointed as members subsequent to 37 members, they are also integral part of the society and therefore they have every right to participate in the activities of the society, but the judgment in WP No. 25165 of 2005 dated 4-1-2007 is coming in their way and disqualifying them from participating in the activities of the society as the learned single Judge fixed the cut off date as 3-10-1996 and the members who are on rolls will decide the fate of the new members. This part of the observation in the order of the writ petition in WP No.25165 of 2005 needs to be set aside, otherwise they will be put to loss and hardship. Hence, they pray to permit them to come on record in the W.A.No. 144 of 2007 as proposed respondent Nos. 11 to 14. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the society Mr. Hemendranath Reddy has contended that the petitioners herein are all fresh members who have joined after 22-5-2005 and they have no cause of action that can be related to the writ petition or in the present writ appeal and therefore the petition is not maintainable. 14. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the society and as the petitioners herein are admittedly trying to come on record after the new 37 members, this court feels that they have no cause of action to contest the matter. 15. Under the above circumstances, we are not inclined to allow the said petition and accordingly the WPMP No. 2325 of 2009 is dismissed. WAMP No. 2383 of 2008 in WA No.144 of 2007: 16. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, the interim direction given by a Division Bench of this Court on 26-09-2008 prohibiting the society from implementing its decision in pursuance of the meeting until further orders stands vacated and this petition is dismissed. WA No. 809 of 2007: 17. This writ appeal is filed aggrieved against the impugned order of the learned single judge dated 4-1-2007 passed in WP No.25165 of 2005. 18. The above writ appeal is filed with the leave of this court by three petitioners claiming that they are also part among 37 new members contending that they are necessary parties and as they have not been added as parties in the above Writ Petition and the orders have been obtained behind their back, the respondents herein cannot maintain the writ petition. It is also contended that challenging the Resolution of the General Body dated 30.9.2001, respondents No. 7 and 8 herein filed A.R.C No. 140 and 141 of 2003 before the Arbitrator under the Act, which are pending, and the same is sub-judice and hence, the respondents could not have maintained the writ petition for the very same relief. It is also stated that the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1056 of 1999 has left open the membership issue to the Society’s discretion, on merits, in accordance with law, and accordingly, general body of the society, on requisition by the respondent/writ petitioners and others, decided the question in accordance with law and the said Resolution is the subject matter of the A.R.C. No. 140 and 141 of 2003, before the 2nd respondent, which are still pending, and any other general body meeting for the very same purpose is not permissible. It is also stated that the learned single Judge’s observation that the order of the Division Bench has not been properly construed is wrong and untenable as there is no finding with regard to the membership and the Division Bench order is only confined to the expulsion of the petitioners herein and the Division Bench has set aside the withdrawal order passed by the 2nd respondent which deals with the expulsion and membership is automatically restored and under the above circumstances they are deemed to be still continued as members in the 5th respondent society. 19. Learned counsel has contended before us that in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1056 of 1999, general body of the Society has to decide the issue of membership, in accordance with law, and since the general body convened the meeting and ratified the action of the Society in admitting 37 new members, the question of again deciding the membership of 37 new members would not arise and the order passed in the writ petition behind their back is untenable. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the writ appeal No. 798 of 2007 has contended that the appellants/petitioners herein are also similarly situated claimants and once they have been admitted as members into the society, the writ petition ought not have been filed behind their back and they shall be made as parties to the writ petition but the same was filed only with an intention not to give effect to the orders passed by the official respondents by virtue of the order dated 27-11- 2006. It is contended that even though their application is rejected and the cheques towards the share capital have been returned to them it would not have any effect on the membership and it is neither terminated nor cancelled as they are still continued to be members of the society, the respondent cannot file the writ petition without making them as parties and hence the judgment passed by the learned single Judge is not in accordance with the earlier orders passed by the Division Bench. 21. Heard on either side and perused the material available on record. As seen from the record, it is a case, on earlier occasion one or the other member have approached this court by filing several writ petitions and one of such writ petitions was WP No. 3720 of 1999 questioning the proceedings dated 17-4-1997 issued by the 1st respondent and also the consequential action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the letter dated 1- 12-1998 withdrawing the earlier proceedings dated 25-9-1996 and thereby suggesting the Society to remove the membership of the petitioner therein and other person similarly situate like the petitioners. The said writ petition was dismissed on 13-7-1999 against which WA No. 1056 of 1999 was filed. 22. A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the said WA No. 1056 of 1999 held as follows: “The petitioner-appellant was admitted to be a member of the Co-operative Society under the Orders of the Deputy Registrar dated 25-9-1996. Subsequently, instructions were issued by the first respondent on 17-4-1997 with respect to the admission of members. The appellant was admitted to be a member of the society even before the instructions were issued. However, later, the instructions dated 25-9-1996 were withdrawn on 1-12-1998. It was left to the discretion of the Society whether to continue the members of the society, who have been admitted under the instructions. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the observation of the learned single judge that the petitioner has not been adversely affected by the withdrawal of the instructions cannot be sustained as has been demonstrated by the subsequent order passed by the society, which has been placed on record in this appeal. In our considered view and the observations made above, the order dated 20-7-1999 passed during the pendency of the appeal is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. In view of the fact that membership of the petitioner-appellant was cancelled, without taking a decision on merits, it is left open to the society to decide with respect to the membership of the petitioner-appellant on merits, in accordance with law and without taking into consideration the instructions issued by the Deputy Registrar or the Registrar of Co- operative Societies and after hearing the appellant.” 23. Another Writ petition was filed in WP No. 18294 of 1999 by 25 persons, styling themselves as new members, questioning the proceedings dated 20-7-1999 expelling them from the membership. Learned Single Judge while dealing with the above matter, following the said orders passed by the Division Bench in WA No.1056 of 1999 dated 2-8-1999 has disposed of the same, holding as under:- “The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20-7-1999 passed by the third respondent, by which their membership to the Society has been cancelled. The same order was subject matter of a writ petition and also writ appeal–W.A. No. 1056 of 1999 and the Division Bench has already quashed the order impugned in this writ petition, ie., the order dated 20.7.1999. On the last occasion the counsel for the respondent sought time to get instructions. Today on the judgment of the Division Bench, this writ petition can be disposed of accordingly. In view of this factual position, it is held that the order dated 20th July, 1999 stand quashed with respect to the petitioners. However, it will be open to the Society to decide with respect to the membership of the petitioner, on merits in accordance with law and without taking into consideration the instructions issued by the Deputy Registrar or Registrar of Cooperative Societies and after hearing the petitioners.” 24. In view of the rival arguments advanced on either side, we have gone through the material placed before us in WA No.809 of 2007, which show that the appellant herein has filed ARC No. 32 of 2000 questioning his expulsion and he has also filed IA No. 1/2000 before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies seeking to set aside the expulsion of his membership and to direct to include his name in the list of members. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has passed an order dated 12-6-2001 stating that on receipt of communication of his expulsion and issuing of the cheque towards refund of share capital, petitioner would not have waited for more than a year. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to draw support from the observations made by a learned single Judge in WPMP No. 29114 of 2000 that membership of the petitioner is considered to be valid. It is also contended that since the managing committee has ceased from 01-10- 1999, all the actions of the said committee were held to be invalid and non-est in the eye of law. But it has been observed by the Deputy Registrar that immediately on receipt of the communication of his expulsion and cheque towards refund of share capital, the petitioner would not have waited for more than a year. However, as per the judgment, the petitioner before him is one among 37 members whose membership is considered as valid by the High Court in WPMP No.29114 of 2000. He has also observed that the petitioner never appeared and accordingly it has been disposed of. Learned counsel contended that the Division Bench in WA No.1056 of 1999 dealt with only expulsion of the membership of new members, but it does not dealt with admission of members. 26. However, it has to be observed that expulsion of membership is being the subject matter in the writ appeal before Division Bench, and the petitioner has never chosen to appear before the Dy. Registrar. There is no finding as such with regard to membership of the appellant herein by the Dy. Registrar. The record further shows that 1st petitioner also issued notices to the Secretary of the society dated 22-9-2001 requesting him to include the membership issue as agenda in the general body meeting scheduled on 30th September 2001 in pursuance of the judgment of the Division Bench in WA No. 1056 of 1999 and WP No.18294 of 1999. It also goes to show that in the said meeting a list was prepared showing the names of members and paid- up share capital as on 31-3-2001. A perusal of the said list does not show the name of the 1st petitioner namely Balaji and that with reference to petitioners 2 and 3, who happened to be the legal representatives of their respective deceased members, there is no material available before this court that they have been added in the place of their respective deceased members. In the absence of such action on the part of the appellants herein, we have to observe that they cannot draw any support from the observations of the Division Bench that the order of the Division Bench deals with expulsion but not with regard to the admission of members in view of the fact that the order of the Division Bench is clear with reference to the members and it was held that the order dated 20th July, 1999 stands quashed with respect to the petitioners. However, it will be open to the Society to decide with respect to the membership of the petitioner, on merits, in accordance with law and without taking into consideration the instructions issued by the Deputy Registrar or Registrar of Cooperative Societies and after hearing the petitioners, which is followed by the learned single judge in WPNo.18294 of 1999 dt. 1-9-1999 in which the present appellants are parties. 27. Though the learned counsel tried to draw support from the observations made by the learned single Judge in WPMP No. 29114/2000 that the admission of the membership of 37 new members is valid, but the said observation is against the findings arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court in W A No. 1056 of 1999 and therefore such findings are not helpful to the appellants that too when those observations were made during the interlocutory stage of the proceedings. 28. Further, we had an occasion to go through the affidavit filed in support of WP No.18294 of 1999, which states that petitioners therein have claimed themselves to be the members. But it has to be observed that once the persons were expelled from the membership of the society, unless they are again readmitted, they cannot claim membership of the society. The list of members as published by the society as on 31-3-2001 does not show the names of petitioners/appellants, even though we could find some names viz., K Satyanarayana at different places but as regards the other persons Vilk Sultana, Allauddin there is no material placed before this court that after the death of their husbands/father, they made any application to accept their membership