Delhi High Court
Anand Lok Co-Operative Group Housing ... vs The Registrar Co-Operative Societies ... on 16 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: 68(1997)DLT246
JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.
(1) Writ petition 60 of 1987 was preferred on 6.1.1987 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash (a) order Annexure P-1 passed or. 4.12.1986 by the third respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Section 30(1) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, thereafter referred to as the Act) directing the petitioner Society to hold fresh elections of the Managing Committee in accordance with provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder within one month failing which action under Section 30(2) of the Act was sought to be initiated; (b) order Annexure P-2 dated 4.12.1986 passed by the second respondent in exercise of powers under Section 55 of the Act appointing Shri D.M. Khaneta, Deputy Registrar as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the petitioner Society; (c) show cause notice Annexure P-3 dated 6.11.1986 as to why the allotment made on 27.7.1985 to its members may not be treated as cancelled; and (d) the order, Annexure P-4 dated 4.12.1986 passed by the third respondent declining to accord his approval to the resolution passed by the petitioner Society expelling respondent No. 4 from its membership.
(2) It was stated at the Bar by learned Counsel for the parties that during pendency of the writ petition, reliefs (a) to (c) of the writ petition had become infructuous and the writ petition now survives only in so far as it pertains to the quashing of order, Annexure P-4. This fact is also recorded in the order passed on 9.12.1988 when rule was issued.
(3) The facts being stated are those, which pertain to the issue which survives for consideration.
On allotment of land to the petitioner, a Co-operative Group Housing Society, only registered under the provisions of the Act, flats were constructed. Some disputes arose at final stage for allotment, which ultimately led the petitioner approaching this Court for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. It is alleged that respondent No. 4, a member of the Society, with intent to malign the other members of the Managing Committee made some complaints to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies wherein false allegations were made that allotment to the members had been made illegally. Petitioner's comments were called by the Registrar. Petitioner Society submitted its reply. Thereafter the General Body of the Society considered the conduct of respondent No. 4 to be detrimental to the interest of the Society. It was noticed that respondent No. 4 was also a member of the Managing Committee. Having participated in the meetings of the Managing Committee and being a party to the unanimous decisions taken therein by the Managing Committee (except in the meeting held on 21.7.1985), respondent No. 4 had started questioning each and every action of the Managing Committee. A false and malicious tirade was initiated by respondent No. 4 against by the Managing Committee. Facts which were false to his knowledge were supplied to the Registrar's office. Due to the acts of respondent No. 4, which were considered to be detrimental to the proper working and functioning of the petitioner Society, unanimous decision was taken in the General Body meeting held on 8.1.1986, after a prolonged discussion, to issue a notice to respondent No. 4, to show cause as to why he be not removed from the Managing Committee and even expelled from the membership of the Society. Pursuant to the said decision, on 13.3.1986 a notice under Rule 36 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was duly served upon respondent No. 4 to show cause on 16.4.1986 at the General Body meeting, which was to be held for that purpose that why he should not be expelled from the membership of the Society. It is alleged that on 16.4.1986, after hearing respondent No. 4 a resolution, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules was passed expelling respondent No. 4 from the membership of the petitioner. Society, which was sent for approval to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Registrar was requested to accord his approval and inform the Society within a period of six months, which was not done within the stipulated period. On 4.12.1986, communication, Annexure P-4, was sent by the Registrar to the Society informing that the proposal regarding expulsion of respondent No. 4 had been rejected. Challenge to this order, passed by respondent No. 3 (Asstt. Registrar), is on two grounds; firstly that non-approval to the resolution is vitiated by not taking note of the relevant factors into consideration and, thus, is beyond the scope of the power of the Registrar; and secondly that the same was not done within the statutory period, mentioned in Rule 36 of the Rules and thus the Registrar became functus officio. The resolution automatically, on expiry of the period of six months, become operative.
(4) Respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4 in their separate replies have contested the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 in their reply have tried to justify the order alleging that the same was passed in accordance with law. The delay in passing the order occurred, since petitioner Society failed to produce the record and the decision could be taken only much after the expiry of statutory period, on 4.12.1986. Respondent No. 4 in his return alleged that various irregularities were committed by the petitioner Society. Petitioner has been acting malafide towards respondent No. 4. He had rightly brought the acts of mis-management of the petitioner Society by drawing the attention of the Registrar. This act of his was taken by the Society to be an act detrimental to its affairs. Respondent No. 4 also questioned the validity of the minutes of the petitioner Society that the same were not properly recorded on 8.1.1986. Without there being any item on the agenda about his conduct, a decision was taken to issue show cause notice to him. Respondent No. 4 also questioned the same on merits that resolution passed by the Society is malafide and was passed only with a view to deprive him of the membership of the Society because of the complaints filed by him regarding mis-management of the affairs of the petitioner Society by the then Managing Committee.
(5) There is another writ petition, namely, Cw 61/87 filed by the then Hony. Secretary, Hony. Vice President and Hony. Treasurer of the petitioner Society seeking to quash Annexure P-1 dated 17.11.1986 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies referring the disputes raised by respondent No. 4 to the arbitration of respondent No. 2. During course of arguments it was stated that in the event of validity of the order Annexure P-4 dated 4.12.1986 in Cw 60/87 being upheld the said Cw 61/87 will become infructuous and in case order Annexure P- 4 dated 4.12.1986 in Cw 60/87 is quashed and set aside. Cw 61/87 will have to be allowed and the order Annexure P-1 in Cw 60/87 will have to be quashed and set aside. Order Annexure P-1 dated 4.12.1986 in Cw 60/87 which is under challenge reads: "OFFICE Of The Registrar CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES: Delhi Adma, Old COURT'S Building : Parliament Street, New DELHI-110001. No. F./187/G/H/Coop/5066 Dated the 4th December 1986 The President/Secretary, Anand Lok Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., 'Purvasha' Flat No. 13, Mayur Vihar Group Housing Complex, Patpar Ganj, Delhi-110092 Subject : Expulsion of Shri B.B. Chhibber Sir, With reference to the above cited subject, I am directed to inform you that the matter has been examined at length in the light of the provision of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and it has been found that the allegations levelled against Shri B.B. Chhibber are without any substance. Hence the proposal regarding expulsion of Shri B.B. Chhibber is hereby rejected. It is for your information and record. Yours faithfully, sd/- (K.L. Kadamb) Assistant Registrar (Old G/H) Dated : the 4th December 1986 No. F.47/187/G/H/Coop Copy to Shri B.B. Chhibber, YZ-8, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023. sd/- ant Registrar (Old G/H) The aforementioned order was passed by the Assistant Registrar in exercise of his powers under Rule 36 of the Rules which lays down the procedure for expulsion of the member of a Society. The petitioner's allegations are that General Body of Members in its meeting held on 8.1.1986 unanimously resolved to issue a show cause notice to respondent No. 4 as to why he be not only removed from the Managing Committee but also expelled from the membership of the Society. On 14.1.1980 the show cause notice pursuant to the resolution was issued to respondent No. 4. General Body meeting was held on 16.4.1986. Respondent No. 4 was not only removed from the Managing Committee but was also expelled from the membership of the Society. On 23.4.1986 the resolution was sent to the Registrar for his approval, as per requirement of Rule 36. The order was passed only on 4.12.1986 disapproving the resolution. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that on expiry of the period of six months from the date of the receipt of the resolution the Registrar become functus officio and the resolution became operative on its own strength. The other ground of challenge, as noticed above, is that the Registrar did not take into consideration relevant factors and the impugned order is vitiated for that reason. Rule 36 of the Rules, as it was applicable on the relevant date, was as follows: "36. Procedure for expulsion of members (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws, any member, who has been persistently defaulting in payment of his dues or the payment of claims made by a housing society for raising funds to fulfill its objects, has been failing to comply with the provisions of the bye-laws regarding sales of his produce through the society or, other matter in connection with his dealings with the Society or who, in the opinion of the Committee, has brought disrepute to the Society or he has done other acts detrimental to the interest or proper working of the Society, the Society may, by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than three fourth of the members entitled to vote who are present at a general meeting, held for the purpose, expel a member from the Society. Provided that no resolution shall be valid, unless the member concerned has been given an opportunity of representing his case to the general body and no resolution shall be effective, unless it is approved by the Registrar. (2) Where any member of a Co-operative Society proposes to bring a resolution for expulsion of any other member, he shall give a written notice thereof to the President of the Society. On receipt of such notice or when the committee itself decides to bring in such resolution, the consideration of such resolution shall be included in the agenda for the next general meeting and a notice thereof shall be given to the member against whom such resolution is proposed to be brought, calling upon him to be present at the general meeting, to be held not earlier than a period of one month from the date of such notice and to show cause against expulsion to the general body of members. After hearing the member, if present, or after taking into consideration any written representation which he might have sent, the general body shall proceed to consider the resolution. (3) When a resolution passed in accordance with Sub-rule (1) or (2) is sent to the registrar or otherwise brought to his notice, the Registrar may consider the resolution and after making such enquiry as to whether full and final opportunity has been given under Sub-rule (1) or (2) give his approval and communicate the same to the Society and the member concerned with in a period of a 6 months. The resolution shall be effective from the date of approval, (amended on 24.5.1982) (4) Expulsion from membership may involve forfeiture of shares held by the member. The share shall be forfeited with the prior permission of the Registrar. In that event, the value of the share forfeited shall be credited to the reserve fund of the Society. (5) No member of a Co-operative Society who has been expelled under the foregoing sub-rules shall be eligible for re-admission as a member of that Society or for admission as a member of any other Society of the same class for a period of three years from the date of such expulsion. Provided that the Registrar may, on an application either by the Society or the member expelled and in special circumstances, sanction the readmission or admission, within the said period, of any such member as a member of the said Society or of any other Society of the same class, as the case may be. Before going such sanction for readmission or admission by the Registrar, an opportunity of hearing may be given to both the Society and member concerned, (amended on 24.5.1982)."
(6) The Rule provides for elaborate procedure to be followed in expelling a member of the Society. One of the grounds on which a member can be expelled is that he has brought disrepute to the Society or has done other acts detrimental to the interest or proper working of the Society. On this ground, the Society by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the members, entitled to vote, who are present at the general meeting called for the purpose, expel a member from the Society. Such a resolution can be passed by majority of not less than 3/ 4th members present only after the member concerned has been given an opportunity of representing his case to the General Body. The resolution will become effective only if it is approved by the Registrar. Approval of the Registrar has to be, according to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 36, which says that a resolution passed inaccordance with Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 36 if sent to the Registrar and brought to his notice, the Registrar may after making such enquiries as to whether full and final opportunity has been given under Sub-rules (1) and (2), accord his approval and communicate the same to the Society and the member concerned within a period of six months and the resolution shall become effective from the date of the approval. The only enquiry which is envisaged, as per Sub-rule (3) of Rule 36 to be made by the Registrar, while granting his approval, is that whether full and final opportunity has been given under Sub-rule (1) or (2) to the member concerned. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4 it is not disputed that a show cause notice as envisaged under proviso to Sub-rule (1)of Rule36 was duly served by the Society upon respondent No. 4. He was called upon to show cause as to why he be not removed. Respondent No. 4 with his reply affidavit has placed on record a copy of notice served upon him, as Annexure D-4/3 at page 482 of the paper book, which reads : "To Shri B.B. Chhibber, YZ-8, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023. Subject : Notice under Rule 36 of Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973. Sir, As authorised and directed by the Managing Committee of the Society in their decisions contained in the resolution adopted in the meeting held on 12.3.1986,1 am to inform you that the Managing Committee has decided to bring a resolution for your expulsion from. the membership of the Society in terms of Rule 36 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 and that the consideration of such a resolution has been included in the agenda for the next General Meeting of the Society fixed at 6.00 p.m. on Wednesday, the 16th April, 1986 at New Deli. The exact place of the meeting in New Delhi is being intimated to you separately. I am further directed by the Managing Committee to inform you that this notice is given to you as required under Rule 36(2) of Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 as being the member against whom the resolution for expulsion is proposed to be brought and you are hereby called upon to be present at the General Meeting to be held at 6.00 p.m. on 16.4.1986 at New Delhi, as mentioned above, to show cause against your proposed expulsion to the General Body of members. The decision taken by the Managing Committee to bring a resolution for your expulsion from the membership of the Society is as follows : "Whereas in the opinion of the Managing Committee Shri B.B. Chhibber has brought disrepute to the Society and also done other acts detrimental to the interest and proper working of the Society as evidenced by the reply of Shri B.B. Chhibber dated 28.2.1986 to the Show Cause Notice issued to him by the Society on 22.1.1986 in pursuance of the resolution of the Annual General meeting of the Society held on 8.1.1986 and as contained in para 15 of the minutes of the said meeting and by the facts contained in all connected records as indicated in the said Show Cause Notice. It is hereby resolved that General Meeting of the Society be held to pass a resolution in terms of Rule 36 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 to expel Shri B.B. Chhibber from the membership of the Society, and, that for this purpose a notice be given to Shri Chhibber by the Honorary Secretary calling upon Shri B.B. Chhibber to be present at the General Meeting called for the purpose, to show cause against the expulsion to the General Body of the members."
2. Please note that in case you fail to be present at the aforesaid General Meeting for which this notice is given to you, the General Body would conclude that you have nothing to represent against your proposed expulsion and the General Body shall proceed to consider the agenda item of your expulsion and adopt such resolution in this regard as they may deem fit. Yours faithfully, sd/- B.N. Som Honorary Secretary For and on behalf of Anand Lok Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd." Notice for the Special General Meeting, which was issued for 16.4.1986, reads: "SUB : Notice For Special General Meeting Sir, I am desired to inform you that a Special General Meeting of the Society will be held at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday the 16th April, 1986 at U.P.S.C. Examination Hall, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011 to consider the following agenda. (i) Confirmation of the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on 8.1.1986; (ii) To review the progress of work; (iii) Consideration of the following Resolution passed by the Managing Committee for expulsion of Shri B.B. Chhibber from the membership of the Society. Whereas in the opinion of the Managing Committee Shri B.B. Chhibber has brought disrepute to the Society and has also done other acts detrimental to the interest and proper working of the Society as evident by the reply of Shri B.B. Chhibber dated 28.2.1986 to the show-cause notice issued to him by the Society on 22.1.1986 in pursuance of the resolution of the Annual General meeting of the Society held on 8.1.1986 and as contained in para 15 of the Minutes of the said meeting and by the facts contained in all connected records as indicated in the said show-cause notice, it is hereby resolved to remove Shri B.B. Chhibber from the membership of the Managing Committee in terms of Clause 20(1) of the Bye-Laws of the Society and to expel him from the membership of the Society in terms of provisions of Rule 36 of Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973." (iv) Expulsion of defaulter from the membership of the Society. It may also be noted that in case there would be lack of quorum, the Special General Body Meeting shall stand adjourned for the next week on the same day, at the same time and on the same place on 23.4.1986. 3. You are requested to please make it convenient to attend the meeting. Yours faithfully, sd/- B.N. Som, Honorary Secretary, Anand Lok Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd."
(7) Annexure P-32 is a copy of the Minutes of Special General Meeting of the petitioner Society held on 16.4.1986. Item No. 3 of the Agenda Notice was the item for consideration for expulsion respondent No. 4 from the membership of the Society. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 4 was present and attended the meeting and also fully availed of the opportunity of representing his case to the General Body. Grievance of respondent No. 4 is that item No. (iii) of the agenda was taken up before item No. (ii). The Minute says that item No. (iii) was taken up for consideration before item No. (ii) of the agenda with the unanimous agreement of the House. That part of the resolution reads : "3.1. The Chairman then mentioned that as Shri B.B. Chhibber whose expulsion had been proposed for consideration of this Special General Meeting under Agenda item No. (iii) of the notice for the meeting issued by the Honorary Secretary under his letter No. ALCOHS/4 (Misc.)/84 dated 4.4.1986 was asked by the notice issued to him under Rule 36 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 by the Honorary Secretary under his letter NO. ALCOHS/4 (Misc.)/84 dated 13.3.1986 to be present at the Special General Meeting at 6.00 p.m. 01116.4.1986 for showing cause against his proposed expulsion to the General Meeting of the members and as it was already 6.00 p.m. and Shri Chhibber had also come to the meeting, accordingly, the aforesaid item might be taken up for consideration before the Agenda Item No. (ii) if the House would agree. The House agreed unanimously. The Agenda Item No. (iii) was then taken up for consideration."
(8) The resolution further states that Hony. Secretary explained the background and the facts leading to the resolution passed by the Managing Committee proposing the expulsion of respondent No. 4 from the membership of the Society and from the Managing Committee in terms of Clause 20(1) of the Bye-Laws of the Society, as contained in Item (iii) of the notice of the meeting. Hony. Secretary narrated the alleged acts of omission and commission on the part of Mr. Chhibber. which in the opinion of the Managing Committee had brought disrepute to the Society and were detrimental to the interest of the Society. Details have been given in the resolution of various matters. The resolution further says that after the Chairman after hearing ensured that respondent No. 4 had the opportunity to his fullest satisfaction to represent his case and had exhausted his submissions called upon the members present in the meeting for their individual views. The resolution further says that the members demanded the Chair to put the resolution to vote. The resolution which was then out to vote reads : "The Special General Meeting of the Society held on 16.4.1986 having considered the resolution of the Managing Committee as .contained in Agenda Item No. (iii) of this meeting and after hearing Shri B.B. Chhibber and taking all facts, circumstances and records of the case into consideration as required, do hereby resolved that Shri B.B. Chhibber be and is hereby- removed from the membership of the Managing Committee and is expelled from the membership of the Society."
The resolution 'further says that the vote was taken by show of hands, in terms of Rule 55 of the Rules. 97 members voted for the Resolution and two (including respondent No. 4) voted against it. Chairman did not cast his vote. Chairman declared the Resolution carried. There is no denial on the part of respondent No. 4 or on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that respondent No. 4 was not given an opportunity of representing his case to the General Body or that the General Body did not pass the Resolution with 97 members voting in favour of the Resolution and two against it. The Resolution says that 112 members were present in the meeting which fact is also not disputed.
(9) In case the aforementioned resolution had been sent for the approval of the Registrar and had otherwise been brought to his notice, the Registrar as per Sub-rule (3) of Rule 36 was required to consider the resolution and was expected only to make such enquiry as to whether full and final opportunity had or had not been given to respondent No. 4. Thereafter he was to accord his approval and communicate the same to the petitioner Society and the member concerned within a period of six months. Admittedly no such approval was accorded and communicated to the petitioner Society within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the Resolution. It was done much after the expiry of the period of six months. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 36 casts a duty on the Registrar to exercise his power of according approval or disapproval within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the Resolution. The plain words used in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 36 places a limitation on the powers of the Registrar. Intention of the Legislature is clear that once the period of six months stipulated in the Rule expires the Registrar becomes functus officio whereafter this power to accord approval or disapproval to the Resolution passed by the Society under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 for expulsion of a member of the Society and the Managing Committee of the society ceases to exist. The Resolution will then become operative on its own strength on expiry of six months. Such an interpretation of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 36 fully finds support from a decision of the Supreme Court in The Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shanker Lal Pandya and Others, , in which similar rule for expulsion of a member of a Co-operative Society was under consideration. The Supreme Court held that approval or disapproval of a resolution by the Registrar has to be within the statutory period from the date of submission of resolution for approval whereafter Registrar becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to reject the resolution. The judgment reads : "After the Society communicates a resolution for the expulsion of a member for acts detrimental to the. working of the Society passed in the manner required by Sub-section (1) of Section 36 to the Registrar for his approval under the first proviso, there is a duty cast on the Registrar to exercise his power of according approval or disapproval within a period of three months from the date of such submission, as provides by the second proviso. According to its plain terms, the second proviso places a limitation on the powers of the Registrar. It appears to us that the obvious intention of the Legislature was that once the period of three months stipulated expires, the Registrar becomes functus officio and his power to accord approval or disapproval to the resolution passed by the Society for expulsion of a member under Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act lapses."
(10) In view of the aforementioned ratio there is no manner of doubt that order Annexure P-4 is without jurisdiction having been passed after the expiry of the period prescribed in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 36 of the Rules. The resolution of the Society became operative on its own strength on expiry of the period of six months from the date when it was sent to the Registrar for approval. Thus, on 23.10.1986 respondent No. 4 ceased to be the member of the petitioner Society as also the member of its Managing Committee. Respondent No. 4 has not challenged his expulsion from the Society. Neither the resolution has been challenged by him by taking appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Act, nor on the expiry of the period of six months any action was taken by him to challenge the petitioner's action in having passed the resolution. Consequently, relying on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in The Balasinor Nagrik Co-operative Bank Ltd.' s case (supra), the impugned order Annexure P-4 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(11) Annexure P-4 in Cw 60/87 was the only order which remained surviving, in view of the various orders passed during pendency of the writ petition. Another fact which deserves to be noticed at this stage would be that during pendency of the writ petition, on 4.5.1988 Counsel for the petitioner had agreed to place the question of expulsion of respondent No. 4 for reconsideration by the General Body, in view of the averments which respondent No. 4 had made in his reply affidavit that members were coerced to vote in favour of the resolution on 16.4.1986 and voting was not properly done. Consequently on 4.5.1988 the Court passed the following order: "Mr. Gupta states that three out of the four reliefs claimed in the writ petition no longer survives because of the subsequent orders. The only relief that survives relates to the setting aside the expulsion of Shri Chhibber, respondent No. 4. Mr. Gupta has agreed to place the question of expulsion of respondent No. 4 for reconsideration by the General Body. Let the same be done in the next general body meeting of the Society. List the case for further hearing on 5th August, 1988."
(12) On 5.8.1988 Counsel (or the petitioner pointed out that the question of expulsion of respondent No. 4 was reconsidered by the General Body, in the meeting held on 24.7.1988 and the General Body re-affirmed the decision taken on 16.4.1986 expelling respondent No. 4 from the membership of the Society. The order passed on 5.8.1988 reads : "Mr. Gupta states that the question of expulsion of respondent No. 4 was reconsidered by the General Body in the Meeting held on 24th July, 1988. The General body reaffirmed the decision taken on 16th April, 1986 expelling Shri B.B. Chhibber from the membership of the Society. Mr. Gupta also states that irrespective of the fact whether the expulsion is proper or not Shri Chhibber has ceased to be a member of the Society by virtue of an allotment of the flat by the Delhi Development Authority in his favour. Let the supplementary affidavit be filed within four weeks. Let the counter affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date. Case for 29th September, 1988."
In view of the above two orders also there is no escape except to quash and set aside he order annexure P-4.
(13) Consequently Writ Petition 60/87 is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-4 is quashed and set aside. It is held that respondent No. 4 ceased to be the member of the petitioner-Society as also member of its Managing Committee on and from 23.10.1986.
(14) As regards order Annexure P-1 in Cw 61/87, it is an order by which the alleged dispute mentioned by respondent No. 4 in his application under Section 60 of the Act were referred for arbitration of respondent No. 3 therein. The alleged disputes as quoted in the order Annexure P-1 are such over which respondent No. 4, on ceasing the member of the Society, will have no interest therein and irrespective of the fact that even a past member of the Society can file an application under Section 60 of the Act, disputes are such over which respondent No. 4 will have no interest on ceasing to be the member and the reference would become infructuous and for that reason rightly the Counsel for the parties had stated that in the event of Cw 61/87 being allowed and the order dated 4.12.1986 be quashed and set aside Cw 61/87 will have to be allowed. Nature and the particulars of the disputes referred for adjudication need not be stated in this judgment, since respondent No. 4 would have interest on those disputes only in the event of respondent No. 4 continuing as member of the petitioner Society otherwise he will have no interest on such disputes. Consequently Cw 61/87 is also allowed and order Annexure P-1 in Cw 61/87 is quashed and set aside.