Skip to content


Ramakrishna Reddiar Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1970)1MLJ197
AppellantRamakrishna Reddiar
RespondentThe Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and anr.
Excerpt:
- - the petitioner gave an explanation on 18th june, 1968, stating that he had left instructions with the secretary to adjust the moneys standing to his credit and that of his family for these loans and the secretary failed to carry out his instructions......registrar under rule 40, the disqualification will not attach to him and he will not cease to be a member, rule 40 (1) of the madras co-operative societies rules, 1940, reads as follows:the registrar may, by order in writing, direct the removal of a member of the committee from such membership, if, in the opinion of the registrar, such member is or has become disqualified to continue as a member thereof under subsections (1) (2), (3) (4) or (5) of section 28.the proviso to the rule requires that no member of the committee shall be removed without that member being given an opportunity to make his representations. rule 40 (2) says that on the issue of an order under sub-rule (1), the member concerned shall cease to be a member of the committee. rule 40 (1) enables the registrar to direct.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Kailasam, J.

1. This petition is filed by a member of the Governing Body of the Acharapakkam Co-operative Supervising Union against the order of the Deputy Registrar, holding that the petitioner had incurred the disqualification referred to in Section 28 (2) (a) read with Section 28 (1) (b) (i) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act and directing his removal from membership of the Governing Body of the Acharapakkam Co-operative Supervising Union.

2. The petitioner borrowed from Acharapakkam Rural Bank two amounts of Its. 1,000 which were payable on 30th April, 1967 and 8th October, 1967. The amounts were due for more than three months, and were paid on 18th January, 1968 and 23rd January, 1968. On a communication from another member of the Governing Body, the Deputy Registrar, issued a notice on 23rd May, 1968 to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from membership of the Governing Body of the Supervising Union. The petitioner gave an explanation on 18th June, 1968, stating that he had left instructions with the Secretary to adjust the moneys standing to his credit and that of his family for these loans and the Secretary failed to carry out his instructions. The Deputy Registrar conducted an enquiry after obtaining the explanation of the petitioner on 10th July, 1968, and ordered the removal of the petitioner from the Governing Body of the Acharapakkam Co-operative Union Limited. Section 28 (1) is as follows:

No person shall be eligible for being elected or appointed as a member of a committee if he:

(a) ....or

(b) (i) is in default to the society or to any other registered society in respect of any loan or loans taken by him for such period as is prescribed in the bye-laws of the society concerned or in any case for a period exceeding three months.

On the facts, there is no dispute that the petitioner was in default for a period exceeding three months. Section 28 (2) provides that a member of the committee shall cease to hold his office as such if he becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Sub-section (1). Reading Sections 28 (1) (b) and 28 (2) (a) together, a member of the committee shall cease to hold office if he is in default for a period exceeding three months. The disqualification will commence when the petitioner is in default for a period exceeding three months. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner might have come by this disqualification, if the loans taken by the petitioner had been paid before the petitioner ceased to be a member by the orders of the Registrar under Rule 40, the disqualification will not attach to him and he will not cease to be a member, Rule 40 (1) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Rules, 1940, reads as follows:

The Registrar may, by order in writing, direct the removal of a member of the committee from such membership, if, in the opinion of the Registrar, such member is or has become disqualified to continue as a member thereof under subsections (1) (2), (3) (4) or (5) of Section 28.

The proviso to the rule requires that no member of the Committee shall be removed without that member being given an opportunity to make his representations. Rule 40 (2) says that on the issue of an order under Sub-rule (1), the member concerned shall cease to be a member of the committee. Rule 40 (1) enables the Registrar to direct the removal of a member, if such member is or has become disqualified to continue as a member. Under Section 28 (1) (b) read with Section 28 (2) a member of the Committee shall cease to hold office if he is in default to the society for a period of three months. Under the section the member shall cease to hold office on the date when there had been default for three months and the subsequent payment will not in any way take away the disqualification. Learned Counsel placed much reliance on Rule 40 (2) and submitted that a member will cease to be a member only on the date of the issue of the order under Rule 40 (1) and that, before that time, if the payment had been made there is no default, and the member will not cease to be a member. This contention cannot be accepted. The question whether a person has come by a disqualification or not is for the Registrar to decide and when a member is or has become disqualified under Section 28 (1) (b) read with Section 28 (2), the Registrar has to take proceedings and issue an order as contemplated. When once such an order is passed under Section 28, the member shall cease to hold office from the date of disqualification and not from the date of the order. Rule 40 (1) cannot over-ride the specific language of Section 28. Whether a member has come by disqualification or not has to be decided by the Registrar and when once it is decided that he had come by the disqualification, the ceasing from membership would be from the date of the disqualification. The payment of the arrears subsequent to the disqualification would not in any way affect the question.

3. The order of the Deputy Registrar is therefore correct and this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //