T.S.Doabia - (1.)Heard Counsel. The petitioner is President of Bhind Co-operative Marketing Society, He presided over a meeting held on 5-11-1995. The agenda for this meeting was circulated. This agenda was so circulated on 30-9-1995. There is no dispute circulation of the agenda and also with regard to holding of the meeting What has happened is that after passing three Resolutions, the petitioner chose to adjourn the meeting, The language used is that for unavoidable reasons, the meeting is adjourned, After mating of the above note, the petitioner appears to have left the meeting. However, the remaining members chose to continue with the meeting and passed several resolutions. One of those resolutions is at S. No. 13. By this Resolution, it was resolved that all housing societies would cease to be members of respondent No. 2 Society, as g consequence of which the housing societies were to be removed from the membership of respondent No. 2. It is this part of the resolution which is being challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The argument advanced is that after the Chairman of the meeting had adjourned the meeting, the remaining members could not transact any other business. The other arnument is that even if they could transact the business, only that agenda that was circulated could be considered and the consideration of such iterms which were not parts of the agenda was not appropriate. The relevant Section which deals with the holding of the meeting is Section 49 The Committee has further framed bye-laws. Under bye-law 27, the meeting is to be presided aver by the president of the Society. As to what are the rights of a person who is Chairman of the meeting or is presiding in a meeting was subject-matter of consideration before the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deodutt Sharma v. Z. A. Zaidi AIR 1960 Rajasthan 23. It was held that the Chairman cannot act arbitrarily and he cannot adjourn the meeting without any rhyme or reason. If he does so, then the remaining members can continue the business and they can pass resolutions with regard to all those matters which are there, on the agenda. The relevant conclusions have been summarised in para 51 of the Report. These are as under : "51. From the aforesaid view of cases, the following principles clearly emerge ; 1. That once a meeting had been properly called and it metts the chairman of the meeting can only adjourn it with the consent of the majority of the members subject to course to the rules and regulations of the particular body in relation to which such a question might arise. Thus where a meeting, according to a statute or the rules under which it has been called, must have a certain quorum, and such quorum is not present, the chairman will have the authority to adjourn the meeting because in its absence no lawful meeting can be held.
(2.)In the absence of any rule to the contrary, the common law doctrine should be held to prevail that the adjournment of the meeting rests with the majority of the members present and is not a matter merely of the pleasure of the chairman.
(3.)An exception to the aforesaid rule which has been almost universally accepted is that where disorder breaks out at a meeting the chairman has an inherent right, even if it has not been granted by statute or the rules, to adjourn the meeting, without consulting the majority,