Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.17 The   impugned   order   passed   by   respondent   No.1  HC-NIC Page 14 of 51 Created On Tue Jul 12 02:28:28 IST 2016 would mean that if a person makes a complaint against  any   office   bearers   of   the   Society,   he   cannot   be  admitted   to   membership.   If   this   becomes   an   absolute  proposition,   the   order   would   stand   vitiated   on   this  ground   alone.   That   the   grounds   for   the  rejection   of  the application of the petitioner are hardly rational  but   are   flimsy   and   arbitrary   and   cannot   stand   the  scrutiny of law.

3.18 Distinguishing   the   judgment   in   the   case   of  Zoroastrian   Co­operative   Housing   Society   Ltd.   And   Another   Vs.   District   Registrar,   Co­operative   Societies   (Urban)   And   Others   (supra)  that   has   been  referred to in the impugned order of respondent No.1,  it   is   submitted   by   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the  petitioner that this judgment does not deal with the  aspect   of   dual   membership.   It   is   submitted   that   in  this decision, the Court was dealing with the vires of  Rule 12(2) of the Rules and ultimately declared such  Rule to be constitutionally valid. The judgment would,  therefore, is not applicable in the present case.  3.19 In   support   of   his   submissions,   learned   Senior  HC-NIC Page 15 of 51 Created On Tue Jul 12 02:28:28 IST 2016 Counsel   has   relied   upon   the   judgment   of   a   Division  Bench of this Court in the case of Jain Merchants Co­ Op.   Housing   Society   Ltd.   &   Ors.   Vs.   H.U.F.   Of   Manubhai   Kalyanbhai   Shah   Through   Its   Manager   Harishbhai   Manubhai   Shah   &   Ors.   (supra),  by  submitting   that   it   has   been   held   that   membership  cannot   be   refused   or   denied   at   the   pleasure   of   the  Society and in case the membership is refused on any  flimsy   or   trivial   grounds,   the   matter   can   be  adjudicated   before   the   Court   and   the   concerned  Authority.

"8. ....We have considered the question of the   right of the Society to admit, deny or  refuse  the   membership   and   in   the   light   of   the  observations   relied   upon   by   Mr.   Zaveri   and   pointed   out   by   Mr.   Joshi,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   contention   relating   to   an   absolute and unfettered right in favour of the   Society   to   admit,   deny   or   refuse   the  membership   cannot   be   accepted   for   the   simple  reason   that   according   to   this   Division   Bench  decision   (1984(2)   GLR   1244)   itself   as  HC-NIC Page 38 of 51 Created On Tue Jul 12 02:28:28 IST 2016 mentioned in para 54 at page 1298 a right to   be   considered   for   being   a   member   has   been  recognised and consideration would always mean   a   fair   consideration.   Further,   refusal   of  membership   on   flimsy   and   trivial   grounds   has  also been left open to the challenge and the   remedy   of   the   aggrieved   person   and   the   right  to move the Court by regular civil action or   Civil   Court   or   before   the   Registrar   by  invoking   his   special   jurisdiction   in   such  cases   has   been   recognised.  Once   it   is   held   that   there   is   a   right   to   be   considered   for   being a member and the consideration  means a   fair   consideration,   it   is   implicit   in   the   very   nature   of   things   that   the   membership   cannot   be   refused   or   denied   at   pleasure   and   in   case   the   Membership   is   refused   on   any   flimsy   or   trivial   ground,   the   matter   can   be   agitated   before   the   Court   or   the   concerned   authority.  Thus, we find that the Society is   not clothed with such unfettered power and if   at   all   the   society   refuses   or   denies   membership on some flimsy and trivial ground,   it   will   be   open   to   the   aggrieved   party   to  move   the   Court   or   the   authorities   under   the   Act.  When   there   is   a   right   and   remedy  available   to   the   person,   who   has   been   denied  the membership, it does not stand to reason to   accept   the   contention   of   Mr.   Zaveri   that   the  petitioner­Society   has   any   such   absolute  HC-NIC Page 39 of 51 Created On Tue Jul 12 02:28:28 IST 2016 right.   When   the   aggrieved   person   approaches   the Court or the competent authority, there is  no basis for the argument that the decision of   the Society to admit any one to membership or   to   deny   or   refuse   the   same   is   not   open   to   challenge. The first contention raised by Mr.  Zaveri,   therefore,   fails   and   is   hereby  rejected."

27. Though respondent No.2 Society has the power to  admit a person as member or deny such membership, it  cannot do so without sufficient cause, especially if  the person is duly qualified as per its bye­laws. As  has already been discussed, the qualifications in the  bye­laws   are   fulfilled   by   the   petitioner.   Had   the  petitioner not been qualified, it would have gone to  the root of the matter. However, that is not the case.  The right of the Society to refuse admission to its  member to any person who is duly qualified should be  based  on  sufficient   cause.  In  the   present  case,  all  HC-NIC Page 45 of 51 Created On Tue Jul 12 02:28:28 IST 2016 other  reasons   having  been   found   to   be   untenable  and  unsustainable, the only reason to be examined is the  failure on the part of the petitioner to obtain prior  permission   from   the   Society   before   entering   into   a  transaction   for   bungalow   No.1.   Such   failure   is  certainly   a   deviation   from   the   requirements   of   the  bye­laws   but   cannot   be   termed   as   an   illegality   in  terms   of   the   Act   and   Rules.   It   would   amount   to   a  procedural irregularity. No consequences are provided  under   the   Act   or   Rules   if   the   person   applies   for  membership  after the transaction is over. As has been  held by the Division Bench, the Society is not clothed  with unfettered power to deny membership on flimsy or  trivial   grounds   that   do   not   constitute   sufficient  cause and if that is so, the aggrieved party is free  to move the authorities or the Court under the Act. It  is under these circumstances that the petitioner has  approached   the   authorities   and,   consequently,   this  Court. It may not be understood that the Court takes  lightly,   the   implementation   of   the   bye­laws.   On   the  contrary, the bye­laws should be scrupulously followed  by   all   concerned.   However,   when   a   default   has   been  committed   and   is   sought   to   be   cured   later   on,   the  HC-NIC Page 46 of 51 Created On Tue Jul 12 02:28:28 IST 2016 Court   has   to   weigh   the   consequences   ensuing   to   the  petitioner   and   the   Society.   As   the   members   of   the  petitioner   HUF   already   reside   in   Bungalow   No.38   and  all   are   qualified   as   per   bye­law   No.7,   no   serious  consequences or prejudice would arise to the Society  if   the   petitioner   is   admitted   as   member.   The  petitioner   has   purchased   the   bungalow   after   paying  consideration   but   cannot   occupy   it,   as   it   is   not   a  member. It is lying vacant and would deteriorate with  time. Weighing all aspects, it can be said that the  petitioner would be deprived of the enjoyment of the  property and would suffer more due to the rejection of  its application.