^- ^ fc-cV- IN THE HIGH COUR'LOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl WIRT PETITION No. _S_S_L2=-/2003 / PETITIONERS .. c ...M^ .^$^' r^" .<' ^ ^ RESPONDENTS l.Bhagwat Prasad aged about 38years S/o Anant ram Satnami 2.Amar Singh aged about 36 years S/o Anant ram Satnami 3.Padum lal aged about 34years S/o Dalpat ram Satnami 4.Shayam sunder aged about 32 years S/oChatram Satnami S.Samaru ram aged about 50 years, S/o Anant ram Satnami 6.Ramnaraya aged about46 years S/o Tijram Satnami 7.Subhash Kumar aged about 32 / years S/o Mahesh ram Satnami S.Babu lal aged about 38years S/o Kuduram Satnami 9.Puna lal aged about 37years S/oDaras ram Satnami c0( 16(0 ViAJlAflje AAx^<Jl»\'t<^k Sexjc^- 1.. PRESIDENT Harijan Machya Shahkari Samiti, Nandeli, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir (Champa) 2. Harijan Machya Shahkari Samiti, Nandeli, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa) 3. Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Socities, Janjgir(Champa) ^•.^^-:^^-^^^. //2// ^z^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^227 STITUTION OF INDIA THE CON- AP^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 35120F 2003 l.ij Petitioners Respondents Versus Bhagwat Prasad & Others President, Harijan Machya Shahkari Samiti & Others Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on5°clay of December, 2010 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge & 1 1 ^.'. .-..-<:^^%'-^ .( !^y% j ^^// f—."3?y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 3512 OF 2003 Petitioners Respondents Versus Bhagwat Prasad & Others President, Harijan Machya Shahkari Samiti & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.3. Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate appears as Amicus Curiae. None for the respondents No.1 & 2. JUDGMENT (Delivered on ..3... day of December, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 11.8.2003 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, whereunder the resolution for expulsion of the petitioners from membership of Harijan Machya Shahkari Samiti (respondent No.2), wasapproved. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners alongwith others formed the respondent No.2/Samiti and the same was registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960"). The respondent No.2/ Samiti was engaged in the business offishing and profit and loss was shared amongst the members of the Samiti. TheSub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Shakti (forshort "the SDO") after having observed about the financial irregularities allegedly committed by the respondent No.1, who happenedto be the .^ '"^; »fe President of respondent No.2/ Samiti, stayed fishing activities of the respondent No.2/Samiti, vide order dated 16.7.2002 (Annexure P-1). Thereagainst, the respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, without impleading the petitioners as parties. The Additional Collector by order dated 2.4.2003 (Annexure P-2) cancelled the said order passed by the SDO. In the meantime, the respondent No.2/ Samiti, vide notification dated 18.3.2002, expel the petitioners from the Samiti, without affording an opportunity of hearing andwithout show cause notice. The petitioners preferred an application before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, praying that the removal of the petitioners was illegal for want of compliance of statutory requirement before their expulsion from the respondent No.2/ Samiti. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, passed the order dated 11.8.2003 (Annexure P-6) after having recorded the fact that the petitioners were served showcause notice by UPC (Under Postal Certificate) to respond and appear in the meeting of the Managing Committee on 18.3.2002 and the petitioners failed to file their response. Thus, the decision taken by the Managing Committee on 18.3.2002, which was subsequently approved in the meeting of Gerieral Bodyon 31.3.2002 was just and proper. Needless to state that the order of expulsion of the petitioners passed in the meeting held on 18.3.2002, was approved by the General Body in its meeting held on 31.3.2002. The Assistant Registrar by the impugned order dated 11.8.2003 (Annexure P-6) approved the same. No copy of the relevant resolutions have been filed by either parties. ^' 6. Shri Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that proviso to Section 19-C of the Act, 1960, clearly provides that no resolution for expulsion of membership shall be valid, unless the concerned member has been given 7 daysnotice either personally or by registered post, ofthe proposal to expel him and has been given anopportunity ofrepresenting hiscase to the Committee. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners were neither served personally nor by registered post and thus, the resolution dated 18.3.2002 and 31,3.2002, are invalid and subsequent impugned orderof approval passed by the Assistant Registrar, also fall to theground. 8. On the other hand, Shri Shridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and the petitioners have failed to file reply to the show cause notice. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim that the statutory rule prescribed under Section 19-C of the Act, 1960 has not been followed. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. None appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the respondent No.1 & 2, despite service of notice. Thus, Amicus Curiae was appointed for assistance of the Court. 10. On perusal of the documents, particularly the impugned order, it is found that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that show cause notice was sent under UPC on 5.9.2002. There is no finding of the fact that show cause notice was served either personally or by registered post. The Assistant Registrar has completely brushed aside the provisionsof lawas prescribed in proviso to Section 19-C of the Act, 1960. Thus, the resolution dated 18.3.2002, passed by the Managing Committee and thereafter approved by the General ,^> - ^ ^M Body on 31.3.2002, are vitiated and subsequently, the impugned order is bad and unjust. 11. Without going into the merits of the case asto whether there were allegations or no allegations, it is an admitted position that statutory requirement of giving 7 days notice either personally or by registered post, of the proposal to expel the petitioners and further affording an opportunity of hearing to represent their cases to the committee, was not complied with by the respondent No.1 & 2. The Assistant Registrar had not adverted to the same and completely ignored the above stated provisions. 12. For ready reference Section 19-C reads as undef- : 19-C. Expulsion of members : - (1) The Committee may, by a resolution passed by three- fourth majority of the members present and voting at a meeting held for the purposes, expel a memberifhe- (a) intentionally does any act likely to injure the credit of the society or bring it to disrepute; or (b) willfully deceives the society by false statements; or (c) carries on any business which comes or is likely to come into conflict with the business carried on by the society; or (d) persistently makes default in payment of his dues or fails to comply with any provisions of the bye-laws: Provided that no such resolution shall be valid unless the member concerned has been given seven days' notice, either personally or by registered post, of the proposal to expel him and has been given an opportunity to represent his case to the committee. 13. This Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and in Vimal Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and anothe^ held that the entire proceedings for <v non-compliance ofthe procedural requirements would be vitiated. 1 W.P.No. 1328/2003, decided on 12.12.2006 2W.P.No.1033/2003, decided on 19.01.2007 r ,.!•. "^ <\ 14. It is a trite law that when the statute provides for particular procedure, the authority has to comply with the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. When a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in the same way. The legal maxim "Express/b unius est exclusio alterius", is foundation for the above-stated proposition of law. (See: State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna3, Haresh Dayaram Thakurv. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh5 and Indian Banks' Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service ) 15. Applying the well settled provisions of law to the facts of the case, where it is crystal clear that the procedure as prescribed under Section 19-C of the Act, 1960 has not been followed before expelling the petitioners from membership of the respondent No.2 Samiti, the entire proceeding is vitiated. The resolution dated 18.3.2002 and 31.3.2002 and impugned order dated 11.8.2003 (Annexure P-6) are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from this order. 16. Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned Amicus Curiae, is entitled to payment of Rs. 5000/- as professional fee and expenses, payable by the State Government, within a period of four weeks. This Court records appreciation for her able assistance in the matter. 17. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ashok 3 AIR1980 SC 3276 4 (2000)68cc 179 5AIR2b04SC486 6AIR2004SC2615