Co-operation Commissioner, Pune

The husband purchases a flat. He expires. The widow files a nomination to her flat, since the couple had no children. The society accepts it. The widow expires. It accepts membership of the nominee.

8 years thereon, none of the members take charge of the society and it is without a Committee. However, the Dy. Registrar takes no action.

After 8 years of accepting this nomination, the society claims that the widow was never admitted as a member. This is contrary to the Form "A" filed by the society at the time of its registration, wherein she was named as one of the founding member. This charge is raised only with the intention of usurping the flat through the heir as the society intends to go in for re-development. Two more such members are subjected to the same treatment.

The Form"A" is evidence of a clear and intentional mis-declaration by the society liable to action under Section 21-A of the MCS Act i.e. cancellation of its registration. But no action is taken against the society by the Dy. Registrar.

Further, the number of members being maintained by the society is 10 as per latest audit report. This audit report shows a share capital for 11 members. The society has concealed the membership given to a garage sold outside it membership. This is one more mis-declaration. But no action is taken against the society.

The society is liable to action under Section 21-A of the MCS Act i.e. cancellation of its registration.

The society admits in writing that it has not maintained the mandatory Nomination Register since inception but disputes 3 nominations accepted. This Nomination Register is not updated as per remarks of the Auditor in his report. But the Dy. Registrar is not moved.

Above all, the society has filed false affidavits and made efforts to induce a heir to making him file a false affidavit before the Dy. Registrar, when it is made aware of the several heirs to the property. However, the Dy Registrar orders that the widow is not admitted by the society as a member.

When the complaint is put up on Aaple Sarkar, the society admits that both the husband and wife were admitted as members. Such admission is also confirmed by the Dy. Registrar. However, the Dy. Registrar has no intentions of accepting the membership of the nominee.

An appeal with the DJR is filed in 2016. The society consistently seeks adjournments to avoid a decision. Hence intervention through the site Aaple Sarkar was sought once again. But the authority is not moved.

In another case an identical situation had arisen in the matter of a neighbour in the same society. The Dy. Registrar accepts his membership in 2016 but has no intentions to enforce his own orders under Section 79(2) and Section 80 of the MCS Act even as of today.

It is therefore obvious that the so-called society has never followed the law since inception. But the Dy. Registrar and his seniors have no intentions to go by the law it has laid down for the benefit of its citizens.

The society is vacated for re-development and an application for IOD is made for it with Municipality. This stands rejected as of date. The Municipality has no intentions to inform about enforcement of demolition to the disputed members.

No rights of either the society or the heirs are being disturbed by accepting these Nominations. If an issue of a Nomination cannot be resolved in 20 years, it only shows the incompetence of the society and the Dy. Registrar or rather the intentions of the authorities concerned are questionable.

Use of Govt. machinery being flagrantly used is despicable. The sanctity or orders and the law laid down cannot be enforced by the Govt. makes it impotent. What type of an administration is this? The question is whether we live in a society bereft of laws and the Govt.'s approach is a farce created by law. The concept of co-operation is mauled by those who have the authority but we call it a co-operative society.

------- Edited on 2019-06-01 -------

Update on the earlier comment. The orders under Section 78 A(1) b were issued on 28.11.2018 and three members viz. Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer have been dismissed. However these members continue to operate and make an application for redevelopment of the building.
Absolute mockery of law.

The office of Deputy Registrar, R-N ward at Kandivali East is functioning in a tardy manner, shielding the wrongdoers and non-members. The decision making is very slow. All attempts of highlighting the facts by legitimate members fall on deaf ears. It appears that the office is more concerned about shielding wrongdoers rather than giving justice to legitimate grievances of members of society. A thorough probe into the functioning of this entire department will reveal startling facts !!

I would like the Top echelon in dept. to know that the lower rungs instead of assisting the people approaching them ( this is from the Co-op Hsg. Scty members ) in a timely manner , just delay or bluntly ignore the matters put forward.
Examples from real a situation, where legally valid documentation is on hand implicating the concerned.
1 ) The Mg. Com. of the Hsg. Scty. was removed by the Dy. Regr. after the process u/s 78(1) of MCSA for several reasons incl Norn filing of M20 Bonds as applicable in the period from 2006, mismanagement etc. & an Administrator appointed. The Adminstrator simply milked the Scty for about 18 months , incl irrgularly misappropriating 2 Fd's amounting to about 80000/- The audit report as submitted to the concerned Dy. Regr. clearly mentions the same , however No action was taken to recover the same over last Eight Years. Incidentally the Div. Jt. Regr. had passed an order u/s 148(3) where he has named the Deposed Mg. Com. & the Administrator u/s 146 -147 of MCSA incl. secreting of Documents.
2 ) The Accounts of the same Deposed Mg. Com. were ordered to be audited u/s 83 of the MCSA , however despite there being a Mah. Govt. Directive regarding mandatory M20 bonds by Mg. Com. prior to 2012 , the said officer has questioned the applicablity of M20 bonds vis a vis the Unauthorised status of the Deposed Mg. Com., acts & deeds. The Dy. Regr. has directly ignored the legally valid objections of the Scty. & without any reasoning asked the scty, to approach the courts to deceide on the matter.
Incidentally the officer u/s 83 has also filed his report after more than Nine months & stated that he had taken an extension. The date & proof of such extension has been blocked out without any specific date.
3 ) Subsequent to the above the said deposed Mg. Com. persons also forged a Mah. Govt. Directive u/s 79(a) to call for a Spl. Gen. Body Meeting to Appoint a Spl. Redev. Committee , wherein in the Forged Document the Role of the Legally Elected Mg. Com. has been removed to support their demand. This shows that the Co-op dept. is Not functioning to uphold the law despite of solid documented proof.
No action has been taken despite concrete evidence, so the fate of many where such documented evidence is Not available can only be left to imagination.