1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 3699/2009 ( Vishwabharti Gruha Nirman Sahakari -versus- Divisional Jt. Registrar and others ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATED : NOVEMBER 09, 2009 Heard Shri A.S. Jaiswal, learned counsel with Shri D.V. Siras, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri S.K. Tambde, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that expulsion of respondent no.3 on the ground that he has ceased to be resident of area of jurisdiction of society and as he has transferred his interest in society, has been held to be not covered by Section 25, by respondent no.2 Deputy Registrar, and therefore, approval to expulsion of respondent no.3 has been rejected. That order has been maintained by respondent no.1 Divisional Joint Registrar. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this court reported at 2003 [3] Mh.L.J. 189 (V. Shreenivasan .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others), to urge that such a provision in byelaws cannot be viewed as inconsistent and such an act on the pat of the member has 2 been found to be detrimental to the interest of society or against the proper working of the society. He states that the provisions of bye laws and its impact on the action of the society has not been evaluated by any of the authorities. Shri Tambde, learned counsel for respondent no.3 as also learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 support the impugned order. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 states that the respondent no.3 became member in 1974 and new bye laws allegedly framed in 1994 cannot affect his membership. He further states that new bye laws are not retrospective. He further points out that the difference between removal of a member and expulsion of a member has not been rightly understood by the petitioner, and the authorities have correctly applied their mind in this respect. He invites attention to judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1971 SC 245, to urge that such a bye law is found to be unsustainable, as it is inconsistent with the parent provision of the Act. He argues that this controversy was not required to be looked into by the learned Single Judge. I find that, neither the contentions raised by Shri Jaiswal, nor the contentions raised by Shri Tambde, are looked into by respondent no.2 or respondent no.1. The importance of those arguments and their bearing on the action of the society needs proper evaluation. It is therefore, clear that the impugned orders are unsustainable. Hence the order dt. 16.12.2006 passed by respondent no.2 and Appellate Order dated 20.07.2009 passed by respondent no.1 are quashed and set aside. The matter is restored back to the file of respondent no.2 for taking fresh 3 decision, after hearing the parties in accordance with the law. With the consent of parties, time till 15.01.2010 is fixed for taking such decision. The parties are directed to appear before the said authority on 26.11.2009, and to abide by its further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of with these directions, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.