Q.A society refuses to admit Mr. Rao as a member even though he is fully qualified under the Act and the bye-laws, giving no reason. Later, the same society's managing committee completes five years but no fresh elections are held. Advise on

The problem tests two rules — the principle of open membership and the post-97th-Amendment machinery for elections.

This problem raises two separate provisions of the Act.

(i) Refusal of membership to Mr. Rao. A basic principle of co-operation, given legal force by the Act, is open and voluntary membership: a society shall not, without sufficient cause, refuse admission to any person who is duly qualified under the Act and the bye-laws. Since Mr. Rao is fully qualified and the society gave no reason for the refusal, the refusal is not lawful — 'no reason' is not 'sufficient cause'. Mr. Rao therefore has a remedy under the Act; a person aggrieved by a wrongful refusal of membership can approach the Registrar (or the appropriate authority) for redress, and the society can be directed to admit him. Advice: the society could not lawfully refuse Mr. Rao, and it should admit him. …

Saying a society can admit or refuse anyone it likes (it cannot refuse a qualified person without sufficient cause), or saying the society itself or the Registrar's department conducts committee elections — sinc …