Site news

DIRECTOR NOT ATTENDING THREE CONSECUTIVE BOARD MEETINGS, HE SUFFERS DISQUALIFICATION UNDER KCS ACT 29 –C (P) AND BYLAW 55(110 AND 56) DEEMING PROVISION

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
DIRECTOR NOT ATTENDING THREE CONSECUTIVE BOARD MEETINGS, HE SUFFERS DISQUALIFICATION UNDER KCS ACT 29 –C (P) AND BYLAW 55(110 AND 56) DEEMING PROVISION
by System Administrator - Wednesday, 8 March 2017, 10:11 AM
 

By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangaluru : The Karnataka co-operative societies amendment Act 2012 which received accent of the governor on 10-01-2013 amends section 29-C and adds (P) Disqualification of the director he has absented himself for three consecutive meetings of the board of the such society without leave of absence Thus, in the instant case, when the petitioner knew the consequences of not attending three consecutive meetings, it was for him to make an appropriate application well in time, i.e. at the time of absenting himself from 3rd meeting or immediately thereafter as to what was the sufficient excuse for not attending the three consecutive meetings. The JRCS has no power to to overrule KCS Act 29 -c(p) and bylaw 55(110 and 56 prepared and administered by KCS Department under KCS Act. JRCS is asked to provide me information and reasons under section 4(I) (d) RTI Act under what provision of law he gave stay to the notice issued by BBMP SC ST Workers Society Ltdto 4 directors who were consecutively absent for more than 3 executive committee meetings as per bylaw they are automatically themselves loosed their directorship and they are no more directors as they were given time to provide reasons for their absent by submitting leave letter with medical certificates which they fail to give and finally they were informed as per bylaw that they were no more directors in BBMP SC ST Workers Society Ltd.

The letter dated 14-02-2016 stop the meeting has no meaning as under section 29-H a no confidence can be issued only after 24 months and not earlier and thus the 4 director willfully remained absent for the board meeting and attracted automatic disqualification as per KCS Act 29 -c(p) and bylaw 55(110 and 56 prepared and administered by KCS Department under KCS Act and JRCS giving stay is illegal and capricious in law..And the draft rules have been published in the gazette on 12-012017 yet nee to be fianlised and no final rules have been published in ths matter by Government.The primary objective of the Department of cooperation is to see that genuine cooperatives are organized and managed on the basis of sound cooperative principles for the promotion of economic interest and welfare of the people, and to render guidance and assistance for development of cooperative movement in the state. Administering proper supervision and control on the registered co-operative societies based on the above objectives as per the provisions of the Karnataka co-operative societies Act and Rules.Enforcement of the Government policy pertaining to Agricultural credit, Agricultural produce, Horticulture, Fisheries, Dairy, their marketing and processing  and implementation of various schemes.Providing share capital, loan, interest subsidy to the members of the  credit, marketing, consumers, industries and various co-operative societies but also extending govt.  guarantee to loans availed by state level Institutions, Providing financial assistance for the upliftment of the SC/ST backward classes and minorities through the special schemes formulated by Government so that they can not only participate in the co-operative societies activities, obtain the various benefits but also come to the main stream of co-operative movement crossing the  threshold .Provide technical guidance for the implementation of the schemes formulated by the Government.Collection and compilation of statistics of department as required by Central, State Government, RBI, NABARD etc.To exercise proper control and supervision on the administration of various cooperative societies within the legal frame work of cooperative Acts and Rules.                                                                                                

The greatest challenge to any civilized society is the economic deprivation it harbours, in league with social deprivation. It is inescapable that a collective war is waged to banish human deprivation from our midst. No other organized set up can be more potent for this attack than building human capital among the deprived, through sustainable cooperative Development Initiatives. Congruity with human nature further enhances the value of such initiatives. This principle is germane to the cooperative management in the Country and Karnataka in particular, which encompasses the basic human feeling of self-worth as its core. The cooperative strategy goes deep into the realms of building financial capabilities and self-confidence especially among the rural poor.The Department of Co-operation is a vital Department of the Government of Karnataka. The Department functions in close co-operation and co-ordination with various other Departments connected with the implementation of socio-economic plans and schemes. The Department of Co-operation overseas the administration and functioning of various Co-operative Institutions namely Textiles, Sericulture, Industries, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries, Sugar, Horticulture, Agriculture and Irrigation and also assist the societies financially besides providing technical guidance and input. 

28. The Apex Court cautioned long ago that it is not expedient to extend the horizon of natural justice involved in the audi alteram partem rule to the "twilight zone of mere expectations", however great they might be.[ Per Mathew, J. in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Kapoor, ]

29. No doubt, when an order visits a person, against whom such an order is passed, with civil and/or evil consequences, principles of natural justice are to be followed. However, categories like the present one, are to be excluded where it is not an `order' of the BCD but only a declaration of the fact which exists, namely, neither the petitioner attended three consecutive meetings nor offered any excuse what to talk of sufficient excuse. Further, a member to BCD is an elected member and there is no "expulsion" from this membership. He is not expelled from membership. It is a case of deemed vacation on the happening of a contingency. It is this deeming provision which has sprung into action on happening of an eventuality provided in the Section 10B of the Act. 30. As already noted above, similar deeming provision was noted in the case of Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society (supra).

31. `Deemed' is used in various senses. Sometimes it means `generally' regarded; at other times it signifies `taken prima facie to be', while in other cases it means `taken conclusively to be'. The meaning attached to the word `deemed', therefore, must depend upon the context in which it is used. In Section 10B of the Act, the words `deemed to have vacated office' would clearly mean that on the happening of contingencies provided therein, the person would no more remain in office the movement declaration is made by the Council to that effect. As far as first eventuality provided in Section 10B of the Act, to which this case relates, is concerned, the question of considering of sufficient excuse would arise only if such an excuse is given. In the absence of such excuse provided by the concerned member, mere declaration would be sufficient to put into action the deeming clause.

32. No doubt, in other provisions like Article 101(4) of the Constitution of India or Section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, prior permission for absence is to be obtained and there is a provision for automatic vacation from office on not attending particular number of meetings, these provisions were shown by Mr. V.P.Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in an attempt to demonstrate that cases of election to office and incurring disqualification of such office on happening of certain contingency are to be treated differently from the cases where a person is appointed to an office and he is expelled, removed or terminated from that office. In this attempt, Mr. Singh has, prima facie, succeeded. It is but natural that provisions of such Statutes would not be identically worded. But when the matter is examined on the touchstone of applicability of principles of natural justice in such cases, when case relates to election to an office and deemed vacation of office on happening of certain contingencies, all these cases fall in same class. For this reason, judgments cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the cases of C.B.Gautam (supra) and Charan Das Malhotra (supra) would not be applicable in the instant case.

In citations in Delhi High Court Adish C. Aggarwala vs Bar Council Of Delhi And Ors. on 30 September, 2003it was held that "no relief can be granted to the petitioner by way of ad interim order,No doubt, when an order visits a person, against whom such an order is passed, with civil and/or evil consequences, principles of natural justice are to be followed. However, categories like the present one, are to be excluded where it is not an `order' of the BCD but only a declaration of the fact which exists, namely, neither the petitioner attended three consecutive meetings nor offered any excuse what to talk of sufficient excuse. Further, a member to BCD is an elected member and there is no "expulsion" from this membership. He is not expelled from membership. It is a case of deemed vacation on the happening of a contingency. It is this deeming provision which has sprung into action on happening of an eventuality provided in the Section 10B of the Act.