Dear Mr I.C. Naik
Regarding my expulsion by Salsette catholic society for using the RTI act etc I would like to state the following that the expulsion was brought about on me on frivolous grounds. The Managing committee members way back in 2006 wrote complains to the Secretary regarding growing coconuts on one of them, stalking another and assaulting another committee member , and threatening them.
There were all made up stories by the managing committee in a criminal conspiracy. If I had done such acts they should have made complaints to the police and not to the secretary. We have a plot holder type society which has 274 registered members at the date of expulsion 105 members attended and had voting cards that 54 voted for and 3 against so 3/4 majority was not obtained. The society claims that at the time of voting there were just 72 members which is untrue.
Secondly I am holding a share certificate jointly with 5 others so considered associate member without voting rights my brother whose name stands first on the share certificate is given the voting card and he is also a member of the managing committee. He has a long time enmity with me the share certificate is not divisible where in law does it states that an associate member can be expelled without expelling the main member and who is also part and parcel of the managing committee to bring about this expulsion on me.
The Deputy Registrar Kishor Mande had ten hearings and then he dismissed the society appeal. The society went into appeal before the div Joint registrar and the Joint registrar Mohammed Arif at Malhotra house passed following order:
The appeal is party allowed the order of the Dy Registrar is set aside and remand it back to Deputy registrar for fresh consideration.
I am fed up with this cooperative dept and I feel I should move the Bombay high court under writ petition on above mentioned grounds. Kindly advise; I am ready to pay for the good advise that u could give me.
I C Naik
Expulsion of an Associate member of a Cooperative housing society per se sounds quite odd because in Cooperative Society a Primary member is a dealing member for the Society management and Associates are totally at the mercy of the Primary Member. May be in your case Associate member also matters a great deal. It is therefore important to understand the significance of the cessation of Associate membership for the Society as also for the member concerned?
It is necessary to consider what benefits of membership are conferred on you under the registered bye laws of your housing society in terms provision under Section 24(2) namely “an associate member, may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 27, have such privileges and rights and be subject to such liabilities of a member, as may be specified in the by-laws of the society.”
Approaching High Court is not easy and is also expensive and if loss of benefits is a relevant factor. Why the Society management opted for an extreme step as regards an Associate membership is also an important consideration. There are a few bye-laws which makes it obligatory for members to control their conduct with other members and in case any misconduct is viewed very serious (which can be upheld under judicial review ) ste like expulsion is understandable and sensible.
With the information you have supplied situation is not all that hostile to you and prima fascia Authorities are not sympathetic with the Society management. So please provide more facts to render you a meaningful advice. My advice is free to members of Cooperative Societies and so do not worry about costs.
I would also like to go through text of the orders of both the Authorities which have shown favours to you. In fact I am curious as to what has put you off with these two Authorities that is precisely what I want to understand.
Expulsion of a member is permitted only if 60% of the voting members (quorum) are present, by law. From those physically present and no proxy vote permitted, a 75% vote is required.
Further, only a single vote is permitted per property that has joint ownership of share certificate.
In your case, there seems to be undoubtedly a personal interest in having you expelled. In these circumstances, the Committee members are not permitted to be present at the meeting and they are not allowed to vote. If this has occurred, my advice is that you may make an application to the Registrar who is reconsidering this application to recommend a Criminal FIR be filed against the members of the committee. Also, the Registrar at his discretion can suspend the committee members.
Good luck.
“Expulsion of a member is permitted only if 60% of the voting members (quorum) are present, by law” Can you substantiate by giving text of the Law: Section, Rule or bye-law.
Individual society bye-laws may indicate required quorum (3/5th) for a general meeting and indicated quorum for other type of special meetings. No motion can be passed by minority-vote if member quorum is not met.
Lot of society motions can be decided with less quorum but important matters like expulsion motion need to be postponed for other day by Chairman if general-meeting quorum is absent.
This is required conduct for any type of meeting by majority-vote. Any motion passed with minority-vote is not valid.
Refer Rule 60 General Meeting, Rule 60 (2) – No general meeting shall be held or proceeded with unless the number of members required to form a ‘quorum’ as specified in the by-laws are present.
Most society bye-laws may not specify the quorum, or may specify quorum incorrectly, or it may specify for convenience.
After the approved final list of ‘voting’ members is published on the society notice board before the annual general body meeting, the ‘quorum’ is determined and known. If quorum is not present, Rule 60 (10) & Rule 60 (11) regarding adjournment and advance notice, will apply.
Also refer Section 27 of Act – Voting powers of members. Non-voting members can attend the general body meeting, but they cannot be included in ‘quorum’ requirement because they cannot vote.
In case of dispute, Rule 57A, (7)(g) (iii) — ‘2/3rd members are not present at the commencement of the meeting (i) 2/3rd is fraction, it shall be rounded to next higher number’ — this Rule 57A, (7)(g) (iii) being applied for Motion of no-confidence against the officers of the society, will apply.
Different rule to remove committee member, different rule to expel member, different rule to change bye-laws is inconsistent because of Section 72 of the Act, stated below.
Section 72. Final Authority of society — subject to the provisions of in this Act and the rules, the final authority of every society shall vest in the general body of members in the general meeting, summoned in such a manner as may be specified in the by-laws.
The Registrar is bound by the Co-Operative Societies Act & Rules.