I have joined this forum to collect and share views on the captioned subject. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 pertaining to co-operative housing societies.
I am a 28 year old management professional working for an institutional stock broker at Fort. I reside at Vrindavandham CHS in Mulund East. This society is nearly 25 years old and comprises of 60 flats spread across 3 wings.
Very recently the society had received an order/notice from the Dy. Registrar of the T-Ward, Mumbai intimating the members to re-conduct the AGM. Surprisingly the AGM was conducted on 30th August, 2009 after seeking extension from the registrar (please note that neither dissent nor approval was granted by the registrar for this request). Moreover the minutes of the AGM was also subsequently circulated to all members by the managing committe. Apparently from the notice, it is clear that one of the members had complained to the Registrar about the AGM being conducted late and not in accordance to the bye-laws. Surprisingly this member is also a part of the managing committee.
I would like to discuss in detail on this back-ground, once I get a feedback from you all. Looking forward for a fruitful relation with you all.
Thanks & Regards,
Last edited by anand.rao; 10-10-09 at 02:20 PM.
Reason: email link deleted
Our society had received a Notice dated September 27, 2009 (surprisingly a Sunday), which the members of the society received on October 05, 2009. There are, however a few discrepancies which was noticed and I intend to mail to the higher authorities seeking a reply: 1.Reason to re-call the AGM? Since the AGM had already been conducted on 30th August after applying for extension (neither dissent nor approval was given by the Registrar for this request) 2.Reference of the applicable Act to recall the AGM. 3.Details of the Complainant making such a complaint and vide which such notice was passed. Whether clarification on such complaint will be sought from the majority on the proposed AGM. Remedies in the case where such complaint is proved false. 4.Such other matters that may be called for apart from the items in the Agenda as per the notice. Interpretation as per Bye-Law Reference: 1.Bye-Law 173 states about the redressal of complaints. The manner in which a complaint is required to be placed before the managing committee and the manner in which action against such a complaint is to be communicated to the member(s) within 15 days of receipt of such a complaint. We presume that such an AGM is recalled on the basis of a complaint and as per the powers of the Registrar in Bye-law 83. 2.Furthermore, the complaints which could be addressed to the Registrar are also mentioned. Please note our emphasis that the managing committee is collectively involved to address such a complaint as per provisions of Bye-Law 138. Moreover, more than 1/3 of the members are of the view that such a re-call of the AGM is calling for severance of resources, time and money of the society and against the interest of the society. We may in the interest of the society, deem fit to claim any damages arising, with the consent of the Registrar. 3.It is implied that such a complaint is calling for penalties that may be applicable or may be payable, if called for. This expense shall not be borne by the members of the society, and shall be borne by the managing committee, collectively or individually (As per bye-law 138 – Joint or severally), since such a decision to recall the AGM is unprecedented and not called for by the members collectively. Post-Facto approval should be considered after thorough examination of the books of minutes. Retrospective effect may be factored as a measure or a remedy to any issues which the Registrar deems fit, if it is required to be brought into in the interest of the society. 4.Minutes of the AGM genuinely conducted, does not indicate descent or disapproval of any member of the society or the managing committee. Our question is how was such a complaint registered without inspecting the minutes of such a meeting held, with a post facto approval of majority of members. 5. Minutes of the AGM which was conducted had been circulated to all members within 15days as per bye-laws. I hope these are some points which we can address and seek clarification. Please advise if this would be appropriate and what are the chances of getting a reply?
Thanks & Regards,
1. RTI procedure is :Time limits specified in the RTI Act - RTI Guide
1. RTI Application with Fee to PIO
2. If no reply/ not satisfied with reply in 30 (or 35 days in case of submission to APIO or under Section 6(3)),
First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority (normally a officer higher than the PIO)
3. If no reply/ not satisfied with reply in 45 days to the First Appeal, then Second Appeal to the CIC/SIC (time period is 90 days)