2013 (2) TMI 853 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of deemed membership under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
2. Compliance with society by-laws and regulations.
3. Applicability of government directions u/s 79A of the Act.
4. Timeliness of the application for deemed membership.

Summary:

1. Validity of Deemed Membership:
The petitioner society challenged the concurrent orders by the Divisional Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which declared respondent No. 2 as a deemed member for plot No. 25. The petitioner argued that the transfer executed by Harshad Patel to respondent No. 2 was illegal as it violated society by-laws requiring prior permission. The court noted that u/s 22(2) of the Act, if a society does not communicate its decision within three months, the applicant is deemed admitted. The Deputy Registrar confirmed deemed membership, and the court upheld this decision, finding no timely communication of rejection to respondent No. 2.

2. Compliance with Society By-laws and Regulations:
The petitioner asserted that the transfer was invalid due to non-compliance with regulation-6A, which required a higher transfer fee. The court found that the primary ground for rejection was the inadequate transfer fee (Rs. 25,000 instead of Rs. 2 crore). The court held that the society could not impose such exorbitant fees, especially when the government had capped the transfer premium at Rs. 25,000.

3. Applicability of Government Directions u/s 79A:
Respondent No. 2 argued that the society's demand for Rs. 2 crore was unsustainable as the State Government's directions u/s 79A capped the transfer fee at Rs. 25,000. The court agreed, stating that directions under section 79A have statutory force and are binding on the society. The court cited several judgments affirming that government directions prevail over society by-laws in such matters.

4. Timeliness of the Application for Deemed Membership:
The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 2's application for deemed membership was belated. The court observed that respondent No. 2 was informed of the rejection only on 11th November 2005 and applied to the Registrar on 14th December 2005. The court found that this was within a reasonable time and dismissed the argument of delay.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Divisional Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar, confirming respondent No. 2's deemed membership. The court emphasized adherence to statutory directions and fair treatment of applicants, rejecting the society's exorbitant fee demands as contrary to public policy and statutory provisions.