I stay in Mumbai, Maharashtra. The amended bye-laws say that a returning officer is supposed to declare an election programme of 3-4 weeks. The returning officer conducted the entire programme in just one day – from filing of nomination forms to scrutiny, accepting/ rejecting forms, voting, and declaration of election result. Is this short- cut process legal?
Secondly, ?as per new election rules : A member who is having more than two children on or after 7.9.2001 is disqualified to become a member of the committee.?
Two of the winning candidates were both parents of three children each, much before 2001. Were they eligible to stand for elections? Or should the returning officer have rejected their nomination forms?
Thirdly, it is heard that members who do not reside in their flats in the society, are not eligible to become managing committee members. Is this legally correct? Two of the winning candidates do not stay in the society and have rented out their flats. Should the returning officer have rejected their forms?
I would be grateful for an urgent reply from your kind self as members wish to approach the court as there is a feeling of injustice.
I C Naik
In one mail there are three defects pointed out in election of the managing committee. There is no dispute about rejection of the candidature.
It is good that CHS members have started taking interest in the society matters. But for getting correct guidance adequate / accurate facts are necessary, it is no secret that almost 99% of the CHS have members on the Committee who are indifferent to understanding provisions of their own bye laws.
Just one small step and things would be easy. If Pretti Jain in this case were to buy a copy of the Society’s amended bye laws the confusion would have been clearer. For example it would have become clear bye laws do not have a statement that ” a returning officer is supposed to declare an election programme of 3-4 weeks” There are Election Rules published by the State last September, one can read on this site.
https://consumerresourcesin.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/election_rules_final.pdf
Elections are being organised under these Rules under an independent authority called State Cooperative Election Authority. Under These Rules Election Rules are framed for Housing Societies categorizing them as C and D Types. C Types are all housing societies having members exceeding 200 members.Rest are D Type. So the question on the Returning Officer completing election in one day appears to suggest it is a CHS in D category. Election of the Committee to the type ‘D’ societies is governed by Rule 76 of these Rules. This Procedure has one important requirement namely “Election of these societies shall be conducted in Special General Body meeting called for this purpose. Such meeting shall be presided over by the person appointed, by the SCEA for this purpose. The notice of the meeting shall be issued by the Presiding Officer or by such officer, as the case may be at least fifteen days before the date fixed for such meeting. Rest of the Process can be completed on the same day. So if we are talking about D type CHS then having given the Notice of the Meeting, there is nothing wrong.If the Society’s membership exceeds 200 then the Election can be disputed under Rule 78. Election disputes.—No election shall be called in question, except by an election petition presented to the Co-operative Court as laid down in section 91.
2.Disqualification under Section 73A of the MCS Act 1960 as regards number of children of a CHS candidate there is an exemption to members having more children prior to 07-09-2001. But if the number further increases then the exemption stands withdrawn.
Till 1984 members not residing in the flat were disqualified but as per later Model Bye laws this restriction is removed.