Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – s.11 – Complaints filed seeking removal of approximately 2000 members of the cooperative society (engaged primarily in the production of sugar), disputing their eligibility in terms of the bye-laws – A total of 1415 members were directed to be deleted – Correctness of – Held: Order u/s.11 has serious consequences for the members – An omnibus order was passed by the Regional Joint Director(Sugar), preceded by a general notice to show cause which was issued to the cooperative society – There was no application of mind to the grounds of ineligibility asserted against each member – Report of the Committee, constituted to verify the allegations, submitted to the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) containing findings w.r.t the eligibility of individual members was not supplied to them or to the cooperative society – Order u/s.11 operates to oust a particular individual from the membership of the society – The principles of natural justice must be observed in relation to each member whose membership is sought to be ousted – There was a clear breach of the principles of natural justice – The consequence of ousting such a large group of members from the membership of a cooperative society would result in a serious miscarriage of justice unless individual facts are considered in each case – Though, the High Court proceeded exclusively on the basis of the submission with reference to s.11, there were serious objections which were raised both in the appeal and before the High Court in the pleadings in regard to the alleged ineligibility of the members – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Order of the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) and the order of Minister of Cooperation also set aside – Proceedings restored to the file of the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) – Directions issued – Principles of Natural Justice – Administrative Law.
Administrative Law – Non-disclosure of relevant information – Held: An adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it – Principles of Natural Justice.
T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2022) 8 SCC 162; Managing Director, ECIL,
Hyderabad v B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 : [1993]
2 Suppl. SCR 576 – relied on.
Natwar Singh v Director of Enforcement (2010) 13 SCC
255 : [2010] 13 SCR 99; Krishna Chandra Tandon v Union of India AIR 1974 SC 1589 : 1974 (4) SCC 374; Khudiram Das v State of West Bengal (1975) 2 SCC 81 : [1975] 2 SCR 832; Union of India v Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 248; 576; State Bank of Patiala v SK Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 : [1996] 3 SCR 972; State of Uttar Pradesh v Ramesh Chandra Mangalik (2002) 3 SCC 443; Kothari Filaments v Commr. Of Customs (2009) 2 SCC 192 : [2008] 17 SCR 647 – referred to.
MP Jain & SN Jain’s treatise on Principles of Administrative Law – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.