Suggestion for second appeal

[abhijeet]

Any suggestion for one RTI application and the “information “ furnished



There is a strong dispute regarding the membership of the Metropolitan Co operative Housing society, ffice:smarttags" Canal South Road,Kolkata-105. In this regard it may be mentioned that the Hon’ble Justice Sri B.P.Banerjee directed ---- “ to cancel the membership of any of the members if it was found that the membership of any of the members were inducted illegally and in contravention of the provisions of the Act and/or the Rules in this behalf�(Dated 30^th January, 1985) Corrupt Managing Committee preferred an appeal against this Order of the Hon’ble Justice Sri B.P.Banerjee . Afterwards Hon’ble Justice Sri Anil Kumar Sen and Hon’ble Justice Sri Samir Kumar Mookherjee further clarified in their judgment …“ there is a strong dispute regarding the membership. This dispute has not been resolved nor could it be resolved by the Special Officer appointed by this Court. This could be resolved only by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Such being the position, an election held without a resolution of such dispute regarding the membership should not be allowed to be implemented. (FMAT/299/1985 dated 30/.09/1085)As per the affidavit submitted by the ARCS. C.M.A.H on behalf of the Registrar of Co operative Societies , “ hold election after elimination of disqualified members ---“ (FMAT/299/1985 dated 22.07.1994)
Keeping this background information in mind the following eight queries (1 to 8) and seven ‘information’ received from the Registrar of Co operative Societies ( marked as A)
with clarification of the applicant (marked as B) are appended below

Subject matter of the information sought for- Resolving the membership dispute of the Metropolitan Coop. HSg. Society, Canal South Road, Kolkata-105 by the RCS, W.B following the High Court’s directives.

According to the sub section 1(d) of section 4 of the RTI Act ,2005 “ Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons� . So as per section 7 (1) along with the above mentioned relevant section of RTI Act, 05, I would request you to furnish me the following information according to the provision of the said act.
1. Had Registrar of Co operative Societies, West Bengal resolved the membership dispute of the Metropolitan Co op. Society as per the High Court’s directive as above ?
A No

2. When did the Registrar of Coop. Societies, W. Bengal resolve the membership dispute of the said housing society , in obedience of the High Court’s directive given to the Registrar ?
A As the Registrar of Coop Societies ,
ship dispute of the Society, hence the issue does not arise at all.

B (1 & 2) RCS has emphatically admitted that the RCS ,
(2) The election held subsequently without resolving the membership dispute of the Metropolitan Coop Hsg. Society by the RCS , should not have been implemented as it was held , violating the High Court’s specific directions.

3. Had the then Administrator of the Metropolitan Co op Hsg , who was an officer of the Co op Directorate, conducted election of the Metropolitan Co op Hsg held in Jan. 2004, after ‘ elimination of disqualified members’ as per order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court ? If it was not done , did not he violate the High Court’s specific directive in this regard ?

A The then Administrator had conducted the election as per the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court, Kolkata and submitted a report to the Hon’ble High Court , Kolkata , hence nothing could be commented on the issue .
B The compliance report was also submitted to the RCS also along with the petition filed by the then Administrator. Then why the RCS could not comment on the issue? Further as per the Hon’ble High Court’s direction it was the RCS to decide the validity of the election held in 18^th January,2004. So Registrar is the competent authority to comment /furnish the information in this regard.. It is also to be mentioned here that there is no stay order or nothing of the sort which prevented the RCS to comment..
4. If the Registrar did not resolve the membership dispute of the Metropolitan Co op. HSg., how he allowed to implement the election in 2004 violating the High Court’s order and judgment and special directive provided to the RCS ?

A The election was done as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court , Kolkata and , as such, nothing to be commented.
B This is a cler instance of avoiding information to be furnished. The Division did not say anything on the validity of the election held in January and did not approve the election held. Rather the Hon’ble Division Bench directed the Registrar of Coop Societies
(1) to resolve the membership dispute (order dated 30.9.1985) ,which RCS did not obey. It means that the election was held violating the HC’s Order.
(2) to decide the validity of the election held in 2004 and also in 2006.
And the RCS till date did not comply the order.

5. Had the Hon’ble Registrar of Co op. Societies followed the High Court’s directive to resolve the membership dispute of the Metropolitan Co op Hsg before the election held afterwards in 2006 ? If that had not been done what was the reason of non compliance of the Hon’ble High Court’s directive towards him and did not this act was tantamount to the contempt of Court ?

A It is upto the Hon’ble High Court to decide the issue.

B This is also a misleading information . The Registrar is competent enough to provide the information regarding his non compliance of the High Court’s Order foe so many years , as it was directly related with the 612 affected members of the Metropolitan Co op Housing Society . What is the necessity to go to the High Court for this information to know the specific reason of non compliance of the High Court’s directives given to the Registrar time to time.Registrar had repeatedly admitted that he did not resolve the membership dispute of the said Housing Society , in spite of the specific direction of the Court , but why he did not mention the reason thereof ? The applicant had mentioned in his application
“According to the sub section 1(d) of section 4 of the RTI Act ,2005 “ Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons� He had violated the RTI Act ,05 also and thus is allowing the illegally formed Board of Directors of the MCHS Ltd for years after years and the reason of which is best known to him only.
6. If the election held violating High Court’s Order and without resolving membership dispute of the Metropolitan Hsg Society and also without ‘eliminating disqualified members ‘ , what was the reason on the part of the Registrar of allowing the Managing Committee thus formed violating Court’s order, to function illegally for so many years ?

A The constitution of B.O.D on election was done as per the directives of the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata and, as such, nothing could be interpreted on the issue.
B This is also incorrect and misleading information furnished with some malafide intention, in respect of the election held in 2006, as there was no direction whatsoever from the High Court specifically regarding the constitution
of the Board of Directors of the said Society in 2006.

7. When would the Registrar of Co op societies, W.B take proper action as per law against the illegally formed Managing Committee of the said Co op. Housing Society , if that be the case ?
A In view of the reply as above, the questions are redundant at the moment.
B The RCs did not want to provide information /reasons of the query at all.
8. When it is expected that the Registrar of Co op. Societies, W. B would resolve the membership dispute of the Metropolitan Coop. Hsg Society in obedience of the High Court’s order , if it is not done yet ?
A. RCS did not write anything against this query.




Abhijeet