- (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) SOME of the displaced persons from West Pakistan formed a Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , with the object of constructing dwelling houses with the aid of Government loan. It was registered under sec 9 of the Jaipur Co-operative Societies Act (Act No. XXVI of 1934.) This Act was subsequently repealed and replaced by the Rajasthan Co operative Societies Act (No. IV of 1953 ). Certain dissensions among the members of the Managing Committee took place, and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan in exercise of the powers under sec. 51 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act passed an order on the 9th of June, 1954, that the Managing Committee of the Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , Jaipur, be dissolved with immediate effect. He appointed Shri Daulat Ram Saini, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan Shri C. B. Desai, Executive Engineer, P. W. D. , B. &r. , (Rehabilitation) and Shri V. K. Bhatnagar, Loan Officer Rehabilitation Department, Jaipur, to manage the affairs of the said Society for a period of three months. Mr. Saini was directed to work as chairman of this nominated Committee The nominated Committee was authorised to exercise all the functions of the Managing Commi-ttee or of any officer of the Society, and to take all such actions as may be required in the interests of the Society. Mr. Banaram Kirpaldas preferred this application on the 19th August, 1954 challenging the validity of the aforesaid order on the ground that the order was passed mala fide without any reasonable grounds for the satisfaction of the Registrar that the Mana-ging Committee of the Society was not functioning properly, in which case alone he was authorised to dissolve the Managing Committee and to appoint any person or persons to manage the affairs of the Society. The reasons given for coming to the conclusion that the Managing Committee was not functioning properly were mentioned in the order of the Registrar to be as follows : - " (a) 11 out of the 13 elected members of the said Committee have ceased functioning as such, under protest; (b) 8 Members have been newly co-opted by the remaining members of the said Committee improperly and not in accordance with the bye-laws of the said society ; (c) No assistance is being rendered in the conduct of inquiry ordered under sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953 ; (d) Other irregularities and illegalities are being committed in the conduct of the affairs of the said Society". It may be pointed out that Bye-law 36 of the the Society directed the management of the aforesaid Society to vest in a Managing Committee which was to consist of the President and not more than 15 members elected from among the shareholders. Under Bye-law 40 it was provided that "the Managing Committee shall meet once a month, or oftener if necessary to conduct the affairs of thesocie-ty. " Four days were required in respect of notice for holding meetings of the Managing Commit-tee and six members were required to form the quorum. It is conceded that at the election prior to the order of dissolution, the Managing Committee consisted of the President and 12 elected members Certain disagreements among the members (wrongly mentioned 10 in Appendix 9 to the petition) of the Managing Committee intimated to the President by letter dated 24th December,1952, that they were not satisfied with his actions as President, alleged certain irregularities and declined to work with the President in the management of the affairs of the Society. On the same date,73 members intimated to the President that they had lost* confidence in the President for various reasons mentioned in the letter, and requested him to call a general meeting of the members of the Society. By a letter of the same date (Appendix 7 ). 9 members of the Managing Committee, after alleging various irregularities to have been committed by the President requested him to convene a special general meeting of the members,and to get a vote of confidence. The President did not call any general meeting, but in response to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur's letter asking him for a report in respect of the allegations, he traversed the allegations against him (Appendix 10, dated 12th January, 1954 ). Thereafter a meeting of the Managing Commi-ttee took place on the 21st January, 1954, at which only two persons, Shri Narumal and Shri Banaram President, out of the 13 members of the Managing Committee were present. They held the meeting, and recorded that four persons, Shri Bashomal, Shri Khialdas, Shri Daularam and Shri Kimatraj ceased to remain members of the Managing Committee, as they had committed default in making payments in respect of the outstandings of the Society against them. Three other members of the Committee Shri Jealal, Shri Sadhuram, and Sri Dhanrajmal, were declared to have vacated their seats owing to their absenting themselves from four consecutive meetings. It may be mentioned that the absence of the last two persons was recorded for the meeting of the 21st January as well, in order to make up the four consecutive meeting. By another resolution they appointed seven persons to fill up the vacancies declared to have taken place as aforesaid. Bye-law39 (b) relating to cessation from membership of the Managing Committee provides that - "a member of the Managing Committee shall cease to hold office : - (1) if he ceases to be a member of the Society or becomes a defaulter without sufficient cause; (8) if he absent himself from four consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee, without sufficient cause;" The proceedings of the 21st January, by which the aforesaid seven persons were declared to have ceased to be members does not show that they were given any chance to show whether the default in the case of the four members and the absence in the case of the other three persons was or was not with sufficient cause. Leaving that matter apart as stated above, this resolution was passed by the Managing Committee at a meeting where only two out of the 13 members of the Managing Committee were present, while the quorum laid down for transacting business of the Managing Committee, as aforesaid, was the presence of six members. It was contended by Mr. Banaram, who argued the case in person, that this was an adjourned meeting, and for that reason no requisite quorum was necessary. This is a misconception. The word "quorum" denotes the number of members of any body of persons whose presence is requisite in order that business may be validity transacted by the body, and that its acts may be legal. It is a generally accepted principle that the business transacted at a meeting at which the quorum is not present is invalid. Where a quorum is fixed by the Rules or Bye-laws, anything done by the Committee at which the stipulated quorum is not present is not valid. It is for this reason that some-limes the regulations provide as to what should be the quorum for an adjourned meeting. In the present case the quorum for an adjourned general meeting is mentioned in the Bye-laws to behalf the number required for the previous general meeting, which gets adjourned owing to there being no quorum. There is no such provision in respect of the meeting of the Managing Committee, and in the absence of any clause which may permit transaction of business at an adjourned meeting of the Committee by members, whose number is less than required for the quorum any business transacted without the requisite quorum cannot be held to be valid. The appointment of the seven persons was held objectionable by the Registrar. It is also apparent that 9 out of the 12 elected member having refused to cooperate with the President in the management of the Society, only 3 members and the President could not carry on the work for they could never form the quorum specified above. The Registrar was, therefore, right in feeling satisfied that the Managing Committee of the Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. , could not function properly. These two reasons are quite sufficient to support the order which he passed on the 9th June, 1954, and it is, there-fore, not necessary to deal with the third ground. Certain documents were placed on the record by the parties to show that the Inspector appointed to make enquiry under S. 46 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act made a report that the President of the Managing Committee was not cooperating in the conduct of the Committee, but that ground was not intimated in the notice to the Managing Committee for the purpose of submitting any explanation in respect of that allegation, This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed Respondent No. 1 will get costs from the petitioner for two hearings, counsel's fee being assessed at Rs. 80/-per day. .;