Outgoing Office Bearer's Challenge to Election Does Not Suspend Mandatory Statutory Obligation to Hand Over Records

The Petitioner, the outgoing Chairman of a Co-operative Housing Society, challenged the 2025 election results of a new Managing Committee before the Co-operative Tribunal

During the pendency of this challenge, the Assistant Registrar (Respondent No. 3) issued a show-cause notice and subsequent directions under Section 123A of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, ordering the Petitioner to hand over Society records to the newly elected Committee

The Petitioner refused, arguing that the election was illegal and that handing over records would render his appeal infructuous

Consequently, the Assistant Registrar passed an order on June 17, 2025, imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside this penalty and the underlying directions

Section 123A of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, which mandates the immediate transfer of all papers and property to a newly elected Chairman upon their assumption of office

The provision stipulates a mandatory penalty of two thousand rupees per day for failure to comply without "sufficient cause"

The Court also referenced the principles of natural justice regarding the right to a hearing, citing Mangilal v. State of M.P. and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Court reasoned that Section 123A is designed to ensure a seamless transition of management and that its requirements are mandatory and immediate

It clarified that the mere filing of an election dispute does not stay or nullify the election results; unless a competent forum grants a stay, the elected committee is legally entitled to function and possess Society records

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that "sufficient cause" existed, noting that allowing such a plea would let outgoing officers indefinitely obstruct Society operations

the Court held that tendering records to the Assistant Registrar did not satisfy the law, as Section 123A(1) specifically requires delivery to the newly elected Chairman

While the Court found no total breach of natural justice since the Petitioner had filed multiple replies, it noted the penalty should only apply for the duration of actual statutory non-compliance

The Court held that the daily fine shall be computed starting from the expiry of the notice period (April 22, 2025) until the date the Writ Petition was instituted (September 3, 2025)

The Petitioner was directed to pay the modified penalty within eight weeks