Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are partners of M/s. Remedios Brothers Brick Manufacturing Co., a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging a resolution passed by the Suyog Industrial Estate Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. (respondent no.1) to demolish and reconstruct the building in which the petitioners' firm had a tenancy. The petitioners alleged that the resolution was passed without their consent and that the society had no right to demolish the building without their permission. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution and a writ of mandamus to restrain the society from demolishing the building. The respondents, including the society and other members, opposed the petition, arguing that the resolution was passed by the requisite majority and was valid under the society's bye-laws and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The court examined the bye-laws and the resolution and found that the resolution was passed by a majority of the members present and voting, which was sufficient under the bye-laws. The court held that the society had the right to redevelop its property and that the petitioners, as members, were bound by the resolution. The court further held that the petitioners had not shown any violation of statutory provisions or bye-laws, and that the dispute was essentially a civil dispute for which an alternative remedy was available before the Cooperative Court. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the resolution.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Societies - Resolution for Redevelopment - Validity - The resolution to demolish and reconstruct the building was passed by the requisite majority of members of the society - The petitioners, being dissenting members, challenged the resolution - The court held that the resolution is valid and binding on all members, including the petitioners, as it was passed in accordance with the bye-laws and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - The court found no violation of any statutory provision or bye-law that would warrant interference under Article 226 (Paras 1-10). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere only if there is a violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice - In the present case, the petitioners failed to demonstrate any such violation - The court dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute is essentially a civil dispute and the petitioners have an alternative remedy before the Cooperative Court (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the resolution passed by the Suyog Industrial Estate Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. to demolish and reconstruct the building is valid and binding on the dissenting members, and whether the petitioners have made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the resolution passed by the society was valid and binding on all members, and that no interference under Article 226 was warranted.
Law Points
- Cooperative Society's resolution to demolish and reconstruct building is valid if passed by requisite majority
- Society's right to redevelop its property
- No requirement of consent of all members for redevelopment
- Challenge to resolution must be based on violation of statutory provisions or bye-laws
