vkns"k 1- ;g f}rh; vihy la;qDr iath;d lgdkjh laLFkk,sa Hkksiky }kjk çFke vihy Øekad 78&97@2002 esa ikfjr vkns"k fnukad 10-01-03 ds fo#) çLrqr dh xbZ gS ftlds }kjk mUgksaus vihy Lohdkj dj çfrvihykFkhZ Øekad&4 ds vkns"k varxZr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 1/4lh1/2 fnukad 15-11-02 dks fujLr fd;k gSA 2- vihy ds laf{kIr rF; bl çdkj gS%& çR;FkhZ Øekad&2 e/; jsyos deZpkjh x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh laLFkk dk iath;u o'kZ 1981 esa gqvk FkkA çR;FkhZ Øekad 1 bldk lnL; gSA çR;FkhZ dks laLFkk dh vksj ls Hkw[kaM Øekad 53 o'kZ 93 ls vkoafVr gSA vihykFkhZ dks ;g tkudkjh esa vkus ij fd çR;FkhZ Øekad&1 ds ikl Hkw[kaM@Hkou 31] jkekuan vkJe] u;kiqjk] yky?kkVh] Hkksiky esa vkoafVr gS vr% og pwafd çR;FkhZ Øekad&1 laLFkk }kjk iV~Vk vkoaVu fo/ks;d fnukad 29-12-93 ds vuqlkj ik= ugha gS vr% fnukad 10-05-2000 dks mlus iath;d dks f"kdk;r dhA mlesa ;g Hkh crk;k x;k fd çR;FkhZ Øekad&1 us fnukaad 16-09-87 dks 31] jkekuan vkJe] u;kiqjk] ykyk?kkVh ds Hkw[kaM ds fy, vkokl la?k ls :- 60]000@& dk Hkh _.k çkIr fd;kA mDr vk/kkj ij çR;FkhZ Øekad&4 mi iath;d] lgdkjh laLFkk,as] Hkksiky us çfr vihykFkhZ Øekad&1 dh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19&lh ds varxZr dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= tkjh fd;k rFkk vius vkns"k fnukad 15-11-02 ds vuqlkj çfrvihykFkhZ Øekad&1 dks laLFkk dh lnL;rk ls fu'dkflr ?kksf'kr fd;kA bl vkns"k ds fo#) çR;FkhZ Øekad&1 us la;qDr iath;d] lgdkjh laLFkk,as] Hkksiky ds le{k çFke vihy çLrqr dhA bl vihy dks Lohdkj dj pawfd la;qDr iath;d us mi iath;d ds vkns"k dks fujLr dj fn;k gS vr% ;g f}rh; vihy vf/kdj.k ds le{k çLrqr dh xbZ gSA (i) Whether the finding of the Court below is perverse in respect of appreciation of evidence? (ii) Whether the ingredients of Section 19-C (2) of the Act existed for passing the order by the trial Court under Section 19-C of the Act? (ii) Whether the ingredients of Section 19-C (2) of the Act existed for passing the order by the trial Court under Section 19-C of the Act? 4- mDr nksuksa fcanqvksa dks lquk tkdj lexz :i ls fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA 5- vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls mifLFkr fo}ku vfHkHkk'kd Jh ,l-lh-f}osnh dk dguk Fkk pwafd x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr ds iathÑr mifu;eksa ds vuqlkj ,d lnL; dks ;g "kiFk i= nsuk gksrk gS fd mlds ikl çns"k esa mlds] mldh iRuh rFkk vo;Ld larku ds uke ls dksbZ Hkw[kaM@Hkou ugha gS rFkk pwafd çfr vihykFkhZ Øekad&1 }kjk "kkafr uxj x`g fuekZ.k laLFkk esa ,d Hkw[kaM@Hkou /kkfjr fd;k tkuk fl) gksrk gS rFkk pwafd ml ij çR;FkhZ us vkokl la?k ls fnukad 16-9-1987 ds _.k Hkh çkIr fd;k gS vr% çR;FkhZ dks xyr tkudkjh nsus ds fy;s laLFkk dh lnL;rk ls gVk;k tkuk loZFkk mfpr gS rFkk bl vkns"k dks la;qDr iath;d }kjk pwafd fujLr fd;k x;k gS vr% la;qDr iath;d dk vkns"k fLFkj j[ks tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vfHkHkk'kd us ;g Hkh dgk fd la;qDr iath;d us vius vkns"k esa ek= ;g dgk gS fd mi iath;dus dksbZ tkap ugha dh FkhA la;qDr iath;d dk ;g dguk mfpr ugha gS D;ksafd vihykFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ f"kdk;r dh foLr`r tkap dh xbZ Fkh rFkk bl tkap ds ifj.kkeLo:i mi iath;d us çR;FkhZ Øekad&1 dh lnL;rk ls i`Fkd fd;kA 6- çfrvihykFkhZ Øekad&1 dh vksj ls mifLFkr vfHkHkk'kd Jh frokjh us bl laca/k esa rdZ çLrqr fd;k fd ;g lgh gS fd çR;FkhZ Øekad&1 dks jkekuan vkJe] yky?kkVh esa Hkw[kaM çkIr gqvk Fkk mlds fy;s mlus _.k Hkh çkIr fd;k Fkk fdarq ikfjokfjd caVokjs ds varxZr ;g Hkw[kaM vkSj Hkou mlds iq= jfoUnz vxzoky ds LokfeRo esa gS rFkk rRlaca/k esa O;ogkj U;k;ky; dk vkns"k Hkh muds }kjk çLrqr fd;k x;k gSA çfr vihykFkhZ us ;g Hkh rdZ fn;k fd çns"k esa muds] mudh iRuh rFkk ukckfyd larku ds uke ls Hkw[kaM@Hkou u gksus laaca/kh mifof/k dk çko/kku ml le; ykxw ugha gqvk Fkk rFkk çfr vihykFkhZ us bl vk"k; dk dksbZ "kiFk i= Hkh ugha fn;k gSA vr% çfr vihykFkhZ dks bl dkj.k ls lnL;rk ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA 7- çfrvihykFkhZ Øekad&3 dh vksj ls mifLFkr vfHkHkk'kd Jh lat; oktis;h dk rdZ Fkk fd çfr vihykFkhZ Øekad&1 laLFkk esa inkf/kdkjh FkkA okLro esa mlds fo#) dk;Zokgh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&48 ds çko/kku ds varxZr gh dh tk ldrh FkhA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19lh ds varxZr dk;Zokgh dk vkSfpR; ugha FkkA bl laca/k esa vfHkHkk'kd }kjk çFke vihy 26@09 ^^jktsUnz xq# fo#) lkxj* dk vkJ; fy;kA 8- vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr f}rh; vihy Øekad 57@59 uanyky vjksjk fo#) mi iath;d] Xokfy;j ds çdj.k esa bl çko/kku fo'k;d lfoLrkj fopkj fd;k x;k gS & "We have analysed this matter of Section 19-C in first appeal No. 16/2006 Brijwasi Prasad v. JRCS Rewa and others in our order dated 14th May 2009 in detail. We, therefore, reproduce this part as the matter is quite identical. (i) "In support of his argument on point No.1, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance on Revision Petition No. 23/05 (Jt. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Sagar v. Shankarpratap Singh Bundela) decided on 22.11.2005 in which the Tribunal while analyzing the provision of Section 19-C (2) has held as under :- (ii) It is argued that Section 19-C (2) of the Act is non-obstantee clause. In view of the non-obstantee clause, Registrar is directly empowered to expel the member on the grounds mentioned u/s 19-A (a) (b) (c) (d) of the Act. Section 19-C (1) empowers the Committee to expel the member on the ground mentioned in 19-1 (a) (b) (c) (d) after affording an opportunity to the concerned. Subsection (2) Of Section 19 of the Act although non-obstantee clause but it does not give an over-riding effect on the procedure laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 19. There is no inconsistency between both the provisions. The first limb of the Section empowers Committee to take action. It is apparent from Sub-section (2) of Section 19 that the Registrar is empowered to expel any member of the society on his indulging any of the activities specified in Subsection (1) of Section 19 after calling upon such member and the society to explain why the member be not expelled. Thus, it is clear that apart from the member, society is also required to be given an opportunity of explaining why member be not expelled. This leads to infer that initially the Committee of the society is required to take action under Sub-section (1) of Section 19-C and when Committee fail then Registrar comes in picture. Had it been the intention to give over-riding powers to the Registrar by incorporating non-obstantee clause then there would have been no need to call upon the society to furnish its explanation Reference is made to the principles laid down by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in R.S. Ragfzunath v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 81 at page 89, after considering the law laid down in Ashwani Kumar v. Arvindo Bose AIR 1952, SC 369, Dominion of India (Now Union of India) v. S.A. Irani AIR 1954 SC 596 , C. C. Ratna Rao v. Asha Lata AIR 1987 SC 117 . Thus, the analogy that in view of the non-obstantee clause of Sub-section (2) of Section 19-C the Registrar was competent to pass the order dated 2-12- 2004 directly is not sustainable." As submitted by the Govt. Advocate, though Section 19-C (2) begins that notwithstanding contained in this Act or Rules or Byelaws, thereunder it is amply clear that the Section very well requires that along with the Member proposed to be expelled the concerning society has also got to be informed. No matter if action has been initiated u/s. 19-C (1), the legislature in its wisdom has also provided in Section 19-C (2) that there is every cause for the Registrar to hear the society. However, even while initiating action suo-motu, as the action initiated by the Registrar is in the interest of the society, the society definitely shall be free to submit its side as well. The learned Govt. Advocate has pointed out in this report that the copy of the notice has been endorsed to the society, therefore, the provision of this sub-section is complied with. We do not feel convinced with the argument of the Govt. Advocate as the notice to the society would mean that the society will definitely have its case submitted and proved by necessary documents or evidence when necessary. Only requiring the member to show the cause is the incomplete fulfillment of the provisions and it is certainly not complied with in full, since notice to the society as per requirement as well as necessary submission in the matter is missing. Therefore, in conformity with the earlier decision of the Tribunal and in light of the above analysis, we are of the view that the action taken u/s 19-C (2) is not as per procedure required in law." (iii) In the above light of discussion here also we hold that the Deputy Registrar has not followed the principle set by the Tribunal laid down in law itself for him to follow while expelling the appellant from the membership. The question is accordingly answered. (iv) Question No.2 -- It is in this context that the learned counsel's for the appellant's citation has relevance. Let us produce here the conditions of 19-C which can lead to the expulsion of a member. The question is accordingly answered. (iv) Question No.2 -- It is in this context that the learned counsel's for the appellant's citation has relevance. Let us produce here the conditions of 19-C which can lead to the expulsion of a member. They are following :-- 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 purpose, expel a member if he (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. (I-A) Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Committee under Sub-section (1) may appeal before the Registrar within 30 days of the communication of such resolution. (2) not with standing anything contained in this Act or rules or bye laws made-thereunder, where it appears to the Registrar that it is necessary and desirable in the interest of the society to expel a member from the society for his indulging in any of the activities specified in sub section (1) he may call upon such member and the society to explain within a period to be specified by him, why such member should not be expelled from the society. If the member or society fails to furnish his or its explanation. If within the specified period or after considering the explanation within the specified period or after considering the explanation, if received the Registrar may pass an order expelling a member from the society. (3) No person who has been expelled shall be eligible for readmission as a member of the cooperative for a period of one year from the date of such expulsion. (4) Expulsion of a member from a society may involve forfeiture of shares held by the member in such society. (3) No person who has been expelled shall be eligible for readmission as a member of the cooperative for a period of one year from the date of such expulsion. (4) Expulsion of a member from a society may involve forfeiture of shares held by the member in such society. (v) The counsel submits that the appellant has been expelled on no such grounds. There were some allegations regarding the irregularity of the appellant while holding office in the society and the board of the society has therefore been superseded U/S 53 (1). Expelling the appellant from the membership of the society for the same act is punishing him twice which is neither justifiable nor in accordance with the provisions of Section 19-C (vi) It is to be noticed from the conditions laid down in the statute for expulsion that the same are quite stringent and an order to be passed in above respect has to be a cautious and considered one. Particularly expelling a member from a housing society requires the authority passing this order to be extra careful. A member who has built a house in a particular campus of a society if expelled cannot be expected to take away his immovable property along with him outside the campus. Such expulsion would also mean that necessary services like cleaning, road, street, playground, education, insanitation, electricity and water supply can also get disrupted. The whole exercise will amount to expelling a person from a community or caste as it used to be in ancient times in an undeveloped society. There are definitely many other courses if it is a case of misuse of an office by an individual as it appears to be in the present case. The DR has in his power therefore superseded the board of the society. Therefore, expelling a member from the membership of the society is acting quite harshly which is not the intention of the law. Therefore, this question also remains answered that the order has not been passed in the spirit and letter of law. (vii) In the above light of discussion the orders of the lower Courts deserve to be set aside therefore set aside. The appeal consequently succeeds with no orders necessary for the cost. Therefore, this question also remains answered that the order has not been passed in the spirit and letter of law. (vii) In the above light of discussion the orders of the lower Courts deserve to be set aside therefore set aside. The appeal consequently succeeds with no orders necessary for the cost. 9- mDr mn~/k`r va"k ls ;g Li'V gS fd fdlh lnL; dks nf"kZr pkj dkj.kksa ls gh laLFkk dh lnL;rk ls i`Fkd fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk blds fy;s laLFkk dks lwpuk nsuk] vius i{k j[ks tkus dk volj fn;k tkuk vko";d gSA bl laca/k esa tSlk fd çfr vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk us Hkh vk/kkj fy;k fd vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr lanfHkZr çdj.k esa pwafd lfoLrkj fopkj fd;k x;k gS vr% mls ;gka mn~/k`r fd;k x;k gSA 10- mDr foospuk ls ;g Li'V gS fd mi iath;d }kjk /kkjk 19&lh 1/421/2 ls lacaf/kr djrs gq, vf/kdj.k dh O;oLFkk mldh çfØ;k rFkk mlds vk"k; dks leqfpr jhfr ls /;ku ugha j[kk x;k gSA 11- mijksDr foospuk ds çdk"k esa ;g Li'Vr% vo/kkfjr gksrk gS fd la;qDr iath;d lgdkjh laLFkk;sa] Hkksiky }kjk lekyksP; vkns"k ds ek/;e ls mi iath;d] lgdkjh laLFkk;sa] Hkksiky ds vkns"k fnukad 15-11-02 dks fujLr djrs gq;s dksbZ =qfV dkfjr ugha dh gSA oLrqr% ;g vkns"k lgdkfjrk fo/kku dh /kkjk&19 lh dh leqfpr O;k[;k ij vk/kkfjr gS vr% blesa fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko";drk çrhr ugha gksrhA 12- çfr vihykFkhZ Øekad&3 ds vfHkHkk'kd us bl ekeys esa vihykFkhZ dh l{kerk ij Hkh ç"u mBk;kA mlds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ la;qDr iath;d ds lekyksP; vkns"k ij pqukSrh nsus gsrq l{ke ugha gS D;ksafd bl vkns"k ls og fdlh çdkj çHkkfor ugha gksrkA oLrqr% og vihykFkhZ ds çfr ,d çfr}U}rk dk Hkko j[krk gSA og Hkh çfr vihykFkhZ Øekad&1 ds lkFk laLFkk dk ,d inkf/kdkjh 1/4mik/;{k1/2 FkkA mlds }kjk Lo;a laLFkk dh Hkwfe dk vfrØe.k dj mldk nq#i;ksx Hkh fd;k x;k gSA 13- bl laca/k esa tSlk fd Åij fopkj fd;k tk pqdk gS pwafd vihykFkhZ dk çdj.k xq.koRrk ds vk/kkj ij Hkh v"kDr vkSj v;ksX; vo/kkfjr gksrk gS] vr% bl fcanq ij vkSj vkxs fopkj dh vko";drk "ks'k ugha jg tkrhA ifj.kker% vihy vLohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk la;qDr iath;d ds lekyksP; vkns"k dks lEiqf'V çnku dh tkrh gSA mHk; i{k viuk okn O;; Lo;a ogu djsaxsA