25 Jan 2024 3:23 PM GMT
The Supreme Court recently (on January 23) held that as per Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, disqualified members would not be entitled to any notice as they had no right to vote or to be counted as members.
The concerned provisions read as:
“Disqualified members - For the purposes of this Act a member of a society shall be a person who, having been admitted therein according to the rules and regulations thereof, shall have paid a subscription, or shall have signed the roll or list of members thereof, and shall not have resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations; Disqualified members.—But in all proceedings under this Act no person shall be entitled to vote or be counted as a member whose subscription at the time shall have been in arrears for a period exceeding three months.”
After perusing the same, the Court opined that the specific language used is that such members in default of membership fee would not be entitled to vote and would not be counted as members of the Society.
If they were not entitled to vote and they were not to be counted as members, there would be no illegality or for that matter any prejudice being caused by not issuing any notice as the same would be an exercise in futility., the Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah held.
The present case revolves arounda society named Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mul. Prior to the death of the President, due to his poor health, the Executive Body passed a resolution empowering Advocate Babasaheb Wasade/ Appellant as the Working President. He was required to look after day-to-day affairs and management of the Society. As there was no elected President, Vice-President, or Secretary, 16 members of the Society requested the appellant through a written request to summon an extraordinary meeting to hold the elections.
The elections were held, and a new Executive Committee was elected, with Appellant No.1 as the President and Appellant No.2 as the Secretary. Accordingly, a Change Report was submitted before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur. Objections were filed by seven persons alleging to be members of the Society on the ground that no notice had been served on them and that the appellant had no authority to issue notice to summon a meeting for election.
The Court noted that the objectors were in default of membership fees. Thus, it held that the objectors would be treated as suspended members, and there was no occasion to give them notice. As a result, non-issuance of notice to the objectors would not vitiate the proceeding of the special meeting.
Doctrine of Necessity
While applying the doctrine of necessity, the Court held that a working president could have convened the election meeting of a society.
It noted that the then President, on account of his ill health, had got a resolution passed that Mr. Wasade would be the Working President.
Terming the convening of a meeting as a necessity, the Court opined that if the same would not have happened, the elections of the executive body would have been in limbo for an unreasonable amount of time
“The convening of the meeting by the Working President upon the requests by the 16 surviving members was a “necessity” at the time.”
For invoking this doctrine, the Court relied upon landmark judgments, including the Election Commission of India v. Dr Subramaniam Swamy reported in (1996) 4 SCC 104. Therein, the Court had stated:
“We must have a clear conception of the doctrine. It is well settled that the law permits certain things to be done as a matter of necessity which it would otherwise not countenance on the touchstone of judicial propriety. Stated differently, the doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for the authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield.”
The Court also delved into the society's bylaws and observed that as per the relevant clause, the 'Working President' was to act on the directions of the President, Executive Body, and the General Body. Thus, in the instant case, Wasade had no option but to call for a general body meeting.
“Alternatively, the President and Secretary who were authorized under the byelaws had died and no election had been held for replacing them. Even the Vice-President and the Joint-Secretary had also passed away and they had also not been replaced by any fresh elections. The only person who could be said to be managing the affairs of the Society was the Working President Mr. Wasade…,” the Court added before making it clear that calling of such meeting cannot be faulted with.
In view of this, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the Change Report deserves to be accepted.
Superannuation Of Certain Members 4 to 7
Another grey area addressed by the Court was regarding Members 4 to 7, who retired from their service but continued to pay for their subscriptions. Thus, their membership had continued. The Court opined that since they were employee members, their membership could not have continued upon retirement.
“In this context, the obvious question that arises is that once the said Members were Employee Members, their categorisation as such was dependent on them being in service. On retirement, the said signatories would cease to be employees, come out of the category of Employee Members and their membership in the Society could not have continued.”
Thus, before parting, the Court passed directed fresh elections for the new Executive Committee. The same shall take place within six months.
Case Title: ADV BABASAHEB WASADE & ORS v. MANOHAR GANGADHAR MUDDESHWAR & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10846 OF 2018
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 59
Click here to read/ download the order