The case on hand is:
The very existence of the society is questioned for the last 8 years, but to no avail. Absolute arbitrariness in management since its inception is its hallmark. However, the Dy. Registrar has never questioned this society. For several years, there was no Committee. Subsequently, it was taken over with vested interest of self-redevelopment.
Notice under Section 79(3) of MCS Act was issued to the society. It treated this notice with utter contempt and ignored. However, the Co-operation Department is not moved at all. There is no action by it.
So is the case with the Municipal Corporation. It entertains the society's application of self-redevelopment with gusto by enforcing Section 354 of of the BMC Act, neglecting the Mumbai High Court's order on rehabilitation of its existing members.
But none of the above authorities are moved.
Thereby, I can safely conclude that co-operation exists only for manipulations and that the Co-operation Department is defunct, when it comes to self-redevelopment. more
Moreover there is No alternate remedial measures available.
As against this, any of illegal acts and activities required to be initiated the same personnel's acts so swiftly to astonish the total acts and activities.
A simple example is the statutory Compliance s requited to be complied by the Management - which are NOT complied - wherein the Actions initiated against few swiftly and drastically, whereas thous societies who Obey the DEMANDS will be speared for Years together.
That is WHY the total Dept is in doldrums - be it Co-op. Banks or Co-op. societies.
In case in Hand - advisable to Move to Bombay High Court instead of wasting time, efforts and money in the manner presently adopted. The Results are well before you. more
Every Managing Committee was required to execute a bond and send intimation of the execution of the Bond to the respective Registrar. If it does not, that committee stands disqualified.
How many of the hundreds of societies registered execute such bonds? The courts decided that all decisions taken by such committees would be illegal. However every society had a committee and it functioned.
Subsequently, the Govt. introduced a notification that committee members would not be required to execute this bond. But again, members disqualified due to the earlier condition, could not contest election.
This folly leads to the suffering of the disputed members, because the committee is vindictive and the Dy. Registrar defunct.
What is the role of the concerned Dy. Registrar? How many committees did he declare as illegal?
The simple conclusion is that the govt wants to retain power in its hand but not enforce it, even after the irregularity being pointed out. more
When there is no strength of staff to monitor the implementation of the Act in its proper sense and every matter, including enforcement and elections, is conducted by people outside the govt. employment, what is the sanctity of their reports?
A video recording of the election process is required to be done. Who is to store this video? The Registrar or the society? What is the authenticity of this and who is to certify this? Obviously, the costs will have to be borne by the society.
The Govt. appointed auditors also play their role. When the audit is conducted and queries made by the auditor, the auditor should be satisfied. Once he has certified the audit, should the auditor not be held responsible for the report? If he certifies something wrong, what is the consequence to the auditor?
Does the auditor check the strength of the members vis-a-vis the share capital? Why should he not be responsible if the Share capital is described as Rs. 2,750/-(11 members@ 5 shares of Rs. 50 each per member) and member strength as 10. The Dy. Registrar and the Audit Department carries on like this for 37 years. What is the purpose of the Audit Department and separate Commissioner?
Are we really being covered by the Act? Does it make sense to the Govt. itself. The Co-operation Department is nothing but a Tamasha to ensure that the disputing member is always persecuted.
The Co-operation Department is inert when such discrepancies are brought to its notice.
Why should the cost of running this department be borne by the public? more