Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Bhalbhim T. Malwankar, was the Chairman of the Chapora Boat Owners Cooperative Society. On 24/08/2016, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a notice under Section 77(1)(d) of the Goa Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, directing the managing committee to convene a special meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. The notice did not specify any time period for compliance. Subsequently, a special meeting was held on 02/09/2016, in which a no-confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. Following this, respondent no.6 was appointed as the new Chairman on 19/09/2016. The petitioner challenged these actions before the Cooperative Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on 14/03/2017. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The main legal issues were whether the notice under Section 77(1)(d) was valid despite not specifying a time period, whether the requisition for the special meeting was valid, and whether the special meeting and subsequent appointment were in compliance with the Act and bye-laws. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it did not specify a time period for compliance, and that the requisition was invalid because it was not signed by 1/3rd of the total members of the society. The respondents argued that the notice was valid as 'forthwith' implies immediate compliance, and that the requisition was valid as it was signed by 1/3rd of the managing committee members as required under Bye-Law 29(ix). The court analyzed the provisions of Section 77(1)(d) and Bye-Law 29(ix) and held that the notice was valid, the requisition was valid, and the special meeting and appointment were in compliance with the law. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the no-confidence motion and the appointment of respondent no.6 as Chairman.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Societies - No-Confidence Motion - Validity of Notice under Section 77(1)(d) - Goa Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, Section 77(1)(d) - The notice issued by the Assistant Registrar under Section 77(1)(d) of the Act, which did not specify any time period for compliance, was held to be valid. The court interpreted 'forthwith' in Section 77(1)(d) to mean that the notice must be complied with immediately, and the absence of a specific time period does not render the notice invalid. The court also held that the Assistant Registrar has the power to issue such notice without conducting a prior inquiry, as the provision is intended to ensure compliance with the Act, rules, and bye-laws. (Paras 8-12) B) Cooperative Societies - No-Confidence Motion - Compliance with Bye-Law 29(ix) - Goa Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, Bye-Law 29(ix) - The court held that the requisition for the special meeting to consider the no-confidence motion was valid as it was signed by 1/3rd of the total members of the managing committee, as required under Bye-Law 29(ix). The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the requisition was invalid because it was not signed by 1/3rd of the total members of the society. (Paras 13-15) C) Cooperative Societies - No-Confidence Motion - Validity of Special Meeting - Goa Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, Bye-Law 29(ix) - The special meeting held on 02/09/2016 was valid as it was convened within the time frame prescribed under Bye-Law 29(ix). The court held that the meeting was properly conducted and the no-confidence motion was passed by the requisite majority. (Paras 16-18) D) Cooperative Societies - Appointment of Chairman - Validity - Goa Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, Bye-Law 29(ix) - The appointment of respondent no.6 as Chairman following the no-confidence motion was valid as it was done in accordance with the bye-laws. The court upheld the resolution dated 19/09/2016 appointing respondent no.6 as Chairman. (Para 19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice dated 24/08/2016 issued by the Assistant Registrar under Section 77(1)(d) of the Goa Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, and the subsequent no-confidence motion passed against the petitioner, are valid and in compliance with the Act and Bye-laws.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgment of the Cooperative Tribunal and the validity of the notice, the no-confidence motion, and the appointment of respondent no.6 as Chairman.
Law Points
- No-confidence motion against Chairman of cooperative society
- Notice under Section 77(1)(d) of Goa Cooperative Societies Act
- 2001
- Compliance with Bye-Law 29(ix)
- Requirement of 1/3rd members to requisition special meeting
- Validity of notice without specifying time period
- Interpretation of 'forthwith' in Section 77(1)(d)
- Power of Assistant Registrar to issue notice under Section 77(1)(d) without prior inquiry
- Distinction between Section 77(1)(d) and Section 78 of the Act
- Scope of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India
