Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 228 (MP)

PRAMOD KUMAR MEETH v. FARASPAR SAHAYAK CO-OP. BANK LTD. , THROUGH PRESIDENT

1992-04-10

A.G.QURESHI, S.D.JHA

body1992
S. D. ZBA, A. G. QURESBI, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition by a Member of the managing Committee of the Paraspar Sahayak Co-operative Bank Limited. Vide notice Ex. P-1 he has been asked to attend the meeting to be held on 7-4-1992. A show cause notice Ex. P-6 has been issued on 30-3-1992 under section 19-C of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act to the present petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the primary membership of the Society. The petitioner apprehending his removal from the primary Membership of the Society has filed this petition challenging the action on the part of the respondent Bank. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to Shri Dalai learned counsel for the petitioner Section 19-C does not empower the Co-operative Society to issue a show cause notice for taking any action under Section 19-C of the M. P. Co-operative Societies act (hereinafter called the Act ). The petitioner is not only a Member of the society but is also a Member of the Managing Committee. Therefore, the society may issue a notice against a Member but not the Member of the managing Committee because a Member of the Managing Committee cannot be proceeded against under Section 19-C of the Act. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, Shri Anwar Khan states that the show cause notice has been given to the petitioner and he will have an opportunity to show cause before the Committee in respect of the removal. The petition is, therefore, premature. As regards Section 19-C Shri Khan argues that the Act gives such a power to the Committee and, therefore, the notice is not without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) AFTER considering tbe arguments of the learned Counsels and the provisions of law it is manifest that Section 19-C gives power to the Committee to expel a Member of the Society if the resolution is passed by three-forth majority of the members present and voting at a meeting held for the purpose and this provision does not put an interdict on the removal of a Member who has been elected as a Member of the Committee. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the Committee has no power to expel a Member of the Society if the Committee find that he is responsible for committing any of the acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 19-C. Such a power has also been given (o the Registrar under sub-section (2) of Section 19-C if the Committee does not take any action in that behalf. However, it is necessary that two conditions are fulfilled before the passing of such a resolution (1) that the meeting is called for the purpose of expelling the member. From Ex. P-1 it does not appear that the meeting has been called for expelling the present petitioner and (2) that it has also not been decided as a fact that the petitioner is responsible for committing any act enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 19-C of the Act. As such for the present this petition has been filed on an apprehension on the basis of Ex. P-1 which is not a notice of a meeting for the purposes of expelling the petitioner. However, the petitioner is free to reply to the show cause notice Ex. P-6. ( 5 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances this petition is dismissed being premature, with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed .