( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2658 OF 1991 Shri Baliram Hari Patil, R/o Village Machale, Taluka Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Tavase Khurd Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited, Rukhankhede, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon, through its Secretary/Chairman. 3. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nasik Region, Nasik. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.R. Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.B. Talekar, advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 14th January, 2010] ( 2 ) ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. The petitioner was member of the respondent No. 2 - Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited – which deals in business of agricultural and other loans, etc. By this petition, he challenges order dated 24th June, 1991, rendered by Hon’ble Minister of State for Cooperation whereby the orders of the Divisional Joint Registrar and Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies were confirmed. The relevant orders confirmed expulsion of the petitioner as member of the Cooperative Society. 2. The petitioner had allegedly obstructed proceedings of loan recovery from a borrower of the Cooperative Society. A complaint was lodged against him at the Police Station, Chopda. It was further alleged that he had addressed abuses and used foul language, during the course of such incident of obstruction in the recovery proceedings. It was alleged that on 16-01-1988, Recovery Officer had visited village Machale for the purpose of recovery of the loans which were due ( 3 ) against some of borrowers, including the petitioner and, then the petitioner had used unspeakable words as well as threatened the Recovery Officer. The petitioner also had instigated the borrowers to stop payment of the loans due against them by making a false propaganda that the loans were likely to be written off. The petitioner was served with a notice to show cause as to why he should not be expelled from membership of the Cooperative Society. He gave reply to the show-cause notice dated 16-05-1988. He denied that he had committed any misconduct which could cause his expulsion. Thereafter, a General Body Meeting was called on 15-07-1988. Out of 340 members of the Cooperative Society, 205 members were present at the meeting. A resolution was passed to expel the petitioner on account of his becoming unworthy to continue as member. The expulsion order was challenged by the petitioner. The Assistant Registrar, the Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the Hon’ble Minister of State for Cooperative have concurrently held that the petitioner was legally and properly expelled from the membership of the Cooperative Society. ( 4 ) 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 4. Clinching question is whether the petitioner is legally and properly subjected to expulsion from the membership of the Cooperative Society. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, holding for Mr. R.N. Dhorde, would submit that the impugned orders are in contravention of section 35 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the MCS Act”) and Rules 28 and 29 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short, “the MCS Rules”). He would submit that the expulsion could not be approved when there was no majority of 3/4th members of the Society. He contended that the allegations against the petitioner were vague. He pointed out that the notice issued to the petitioner did not specify the charges levelled against him. He argued that the Hon’ble Minister and the other authorities did not apply judicial mind to the relevant material. It is contended that the initial omission of giving details of alleged misconduct was tried to be ( 5 ) subsequently filled up during the proceedings before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The learned counsel would submit that the entire attempt was to show exit to the petitioner without any fault on his part. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2, however, supports the impugned orders. 5. There is no need to examine whether the petitioner was given due notice about the misconduct alleged against him. The notice dated 16-05-1988 purports to show that the petitioner was duly informed that he had obstructed the recovery proceedings by the Field Officer and had used foul language as well as had threatened him during the process of recovery. It was also stated in the notice that he had canvassed that the members of the Cooperative Society shall not repay the loans because they were to get 100 per cent subsidy/exemption. Thus, there is prima facie material to indicate that he had acted against the interest of the Cooperative Society. He was knowing the nature of allegations made against him. His reply to the notice is rather indicative of his obstinate nature. He ( 6 ) threatened that the Chairman of the Cooperative Society would be liable to pay civil and criminal proceedings if he will be called upon to explain anything further. He did not offer specific denial to the allegation of the obstruction in the proceedings of recovery of loans. Obviously, it cannot be said that there was no proper notice given to him regarding nature of misconduct which could have caused his expulsion. 6. Really speaking, the question is whether the expulsion is outcome of valid resolution rendered in the General Body Meeting. As stated before, there were 205 members of the Cooperative Society present at the General Body Meeting. It is pertinent to note that in all, there were 340 members of the Cooperative Society. Section 35 of the MCS Act would make it clear that for the purpose of passing valid resolution, it is necessary that it shall be by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the members. So, 261 members were required to attend the General Body Meeting if the resolution was to be validly passed. Sub-section (1) of section 35 of the MCS Act reads as follows : ( 7 ) “35. Expulsion of members - (1) A society may, by resolution passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the members entitled to vote who are present at a general meeting held for the purpose expel a member for acts which are detrimental to the interest or proper working of the society; Provided that, no resolution shall be valid, unless the member concerned is given opportunity of representing his case to the general body, and no resolution shall be effective unless it is approved by the Registrar. 7. This Court in “K.V. Sundaram and another v. Raj Rajeshwari Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and others” (1980 Mh.L.J. 4), held that conjoint reading of provision of section 35 of the MCS Act alongwith Rules 28 and 29 of the MCS Rules, provide for expulsion of a member. Under section 35, a Society is entitled to expel a member for acts which are detrimental to the interest or proper working of the Society, but this has to be done by a resolution passed by the majority of not less than three-fourths of the members entitled to vote and who ( 8 ) are present at the General Body Meeting held for that purpose. The Hon’ble Division Bench seems to have used word “and” in relation to the requirement of majority of 3/4th of the members in the meeting of General Body. In other words, it is held that the requirement is of presence of 3/4th members entitled to vote and who are present in the General Body Meeting. The interpretation appears to be pragmatic and in keeping with the intention of the Legislature. For, there will be rather a anomalous position if such requirement is done away with by reading the provision with reference to 3/4th of the present members as requirement for passing of the resolution. Take for example, a Cooperative Society has 100 members. Out of them, 80 members are eligible to vote and in General Body Meeting, only 10 are present. It cannot be said that 3/4th of those 10 can validly pass the resolution of expulsion. It is of common knowledge that expulsion of a member is a serious matter. The member may incur stigma as a result of resolution of expulsion. Sub-section (2) of section 35 provides that such a member will not be eligible for re-admission and other benefits. Needless to say, the procedure has to ( 9 ) be followed in accordance with the letters and spirit of section 35 (1) of the MCS Act. 8. In yet another case “Tajnagar Co-operative Housing Society, Nanded v. Fateh Mohammed Maulana and others” 2002 (5) Mh.L.J. 495, a Single Bench of this Court held that where a member was expelled without following provision of section 35 and the Rules 28 and 29, the whole exercise was illegal and without any authority and sanctity of law. In the present case, it is explicit, that the mandatory requirement of section 35 (1) was not followed before passing resolution regarding expulsion of the petitioner. Needless to say, the entire exercise of passing such resolution and the orders emanating therefrom are invalid. 9. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned orders will have to be set aside. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The ( 10 ) impugned orders rendered by the Hon’ble Minister and other authorities are set aside. The impugned resolution is also set aside. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp2658-91