AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioners seeks issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 3 to issue the order of removal, removing
4th Respondent from the office of the President of third Respondent-Society in accordance with Rule 62 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative
Societies Rules and pass such further orders.
Fourth Respondent herein is the President of the third Respondent-Society. Against him, Petitioners have various allegations and on 15.7.1998,
they made a requisition in writing to the Registrar asking him to convene a special meeting to consider no-confidence motion against 4th
Respondent as per Rule 62 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules.
As per his proceedings dated 13.7.1998, first Respondent authorised second Respondent to convene a special meeting, Notice for the special
meeting was issued by second Respondent on 3.8.1998 to all the directors fixing 11.8.1998 at 11:00. a.m. for the purpose of holding special
meeting. On 11.8.1998, Special meeting was conducted and second Respondent convened the meeting. As per Rule 62(7) of the Tamil Nadu
Co-operative Societies Rules, the Office-bearers against whom no-confidence motion was moved and passed in the special meeting shall ceased
to be such Office-bearer from the date of resolution. Even though in the meeting dated 11.8.1998 such resolution was passed, 4th Respondent is
still continuing as President of the Society. This Writ petition is filed by the Petitioners for issuing direction to the Respondents to discharge the legal
duty by declaring 4th Respondent has ceased to be President of the third Respondent-Society in view of the resolution passed on 11.8.1998.
Counter affidavits have been filed by Respondents 1 and 2 and 4th Respondent separately.
In the common counter affidavit of Respondents 1 and 2, it is said that four directors of the Society wanted to convene a special meeting as per
the requisition dated 15.7.1998. Immediately, Registrar served a copy of the requisition to 4th Respondent asking to submit his explanation. He
also submitted his explanation on 21.7.1998. On 3.8.1998, second Respondent issued notice to all the Directors for the special meeting of having
no-confidence motion against President to be held on 11.8.1998. At that time, it was found that the requisition itself is not in accordance with Law
and therefore the decision taken on 11.8.1998 also could not be implemented. Convening of special meeting on 11.8.1998 was ab initio void since
the requisition did not consist of 2/3rd members of the Society. No-confidence motion now passed is also therefore invalid. When decisions has
been taken without jurisdiction, Respondents 1 and 2 are not obliged to declare or communicate to 4th Respondent that he ceased to be President
of the Society. It prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Fourth Respondent also filed counter-affidavit taking similar contentions. It is further said that even the special meeting dated 11.8.1998 did not
pass no-confidence motion and that meeting was also illegally convened. It has no legal effect and consequently prayed for dismissal of the Writ
petition.
I heard the learned Counsel on both sides.
Rule 62 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules provide for removal of an elected Office-bearer. The relevant portion of the Rule read
thus, ""Rule 62 (1) - An elected office-bearer of a society may be removed by a resolution expressing no-confidence in him passed in a special
meeting of the board.
(2) No special meeting of the board shall be convened unless a requisition in writing signed by not less than two-thirds of the existing members of
the board of the society at the time of such requisition who are eligible to vote at elections is presented to the Registrar.
(3) As soon as such a requisition is received, the Registrar shall communicate a copy of the requisition to the office-bearer concerned, called upon
him to make his representations, if any, within such time as may be specified by him. The Registrar shall within thirty days from the date of receipt
of such requisition arrange to convene a special meeting of the board of the society, for consideration of the resolution expressing no-confidence in
the office-bearer for which not less than three clear days'' notice shall be given. A copy or gist of the requisition and of the representation, if any,
received from the office-bearer concerned shall also be sent to the members along with the notice for the special meeting of the Board.
The admitted facts are, the total numbers of members of the Board are seven. It is so stated in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition. Out of 7
members, 4 directors, who are the Petitioners herein did not have confidence in President, and they convened a meeting on 15.7.1998 and made a
requisition to the Registrar to convene a special meeting. According to them, four members constitute 2/3rd of the members of the Board.
Registrar consequently directed second Respondent to convene meeting as per proceedings dated 30.7.1998 and second Respondent in turn
issued notice to all the directors on 3.8.1998 and fixed date off meeting as 11.8.1998.
According to the Petitioners, a decision was taken on 11.8.1998 removing 4th Respondent from President ship.
As against the said contention, according to 4th Respondent and according to Respondents 1 and 2, the meeting convened is on the basis of
requisition dated 15.7.1998 and that requisition did not have 2/3rd members of the Society and therefore the Registrar has no jurisdiction to
convene special meeting.
After going through the relevant provisions of the rule, I feel Petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 62 provides that
requisition must be in writing by not less than 2/3rd of the existing members of the society. Out of seven members, four members will be less than
2/3rd of existing members. At least five members are required to make 2/3rd of existing members. When the requisition is made only by four
members, the Registrar will not get any jurisdiction to convene special meeting.
Sub-rule (3) also provides that if such a requisition is received, Registrar shall within 30 days from the date of requisition arrange to convene
special meeting of Board of the Society. Thereafter, second Respondent convened a meeting on 11.8.1998 in which also only Petitioners have
participated.
An argument was taken by the Respondents that even on 11.8.1998, no decision was taken and no-confidence motion also not passed.
According to me that argument may not be correct. I find that four members have declared that they have no-confidence in 4th Respondent and
the same is also signed by all the four Petitioners. Second Respondent thereafter made the endorsement. He only records as to who were present
at the meeting and who were not present. He has not stated anything about the resolution passed by four members.
Since I hold that the requisition was made by less than 2/3rd of existing members of the Board, the subsequent convening of meeting on
11.8.1998 is invalid. The decision taken will have no legal sanctity. Since requisition itself does not satisfy the statutory requirements, if any
decision is taken based on the same, it will have no legal force. Respondents 1 and 2 therefore are not obliged to declare that 4th Respondent has
ceased to hold the office of President of the Society.
In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 26609 of 1998 is
closed.