Secretary of Society is Public Servant & can be booked for Corruption – HC

0 Comments

1. vswami says:

   Not simply a good judgment; but is a very helpful one, to those living in misery for long, as owners or residents of buildings comprising multiunit.
   To dilate:
   Here is an interesting and eye-opening verdict from the Madras HC.
   This case is, no doubt, confined to an instance in which ‘secretary’ of a housing society has been faced with a criminal charge under the anti corruption law. But, what ought not to be missed but requires to be specially noted is this: – it carries an important message of general utility to the people at large, who own or live in ‘units’ of a building (namely, ‘flats’ or apartments’), governed respectively by special enactments of States. To be precise, it might come to the rescue of such owners or residents of ‘units’ in a building property, if confronted with like problems in the hands of a person acting as ‘secretary’ or in any other representative capacity of the common body, be it a ‘society’ or an ‘owners’ association .
   Under the law, each owner or resident is endowed with the status of a co-tenant or co-owner (including his private tenant). As such, each one of them is legally bound and socially obliged, to live strictly within the parameters of own individual rights and interests; that is, without encroaching upon those, similar and identical in nature, of the others, in any manner.
   Anyone , – even granting that the person (who must necessarily be a co-owner- for this purpose, the builder/seller is not one in respect of any unsold unit(s)) acting as secretary is one duly elected/ appointed by the general body (society or association), as lawfully constituted in accordance with the terms of the law,- has no more rights or other interests, that is in excess, in comparison to the others. On the contrary, by virtue of anyone being a co-owner , hence, having qualified and been nominated, and elected / appointed, either as a member of so-called ‘managing committee’ in general, or as an ‘office bearer’ ( i.e. president, secretary, treasurer, or whatever) , he is vested with an additional responsibility/duty of an onerous nature. That he is obligated to dutifully discharge in relation the others. His strict position, albeit an unenviable one, in the eyes of law, is no better or worse than that of a ‘trustee’ in its profound legal sense. In other words, any action or inaction on his part in disregard or violation of any duty or responsibility expected of him , in a fiduciary capacity, is, in one’s longstanding conviction, clearly tantamount to a ‘breach of trust'(within its legal meaning), and accordingly liable to be meted out with no less severe consequence than “corruption’ as in the Madras case.
   For knowing more, one should browse through the related Blogs on the popular websites (e.g. common floor, apartmentadda), so mindfully read as to intimately become aware of the immensely useful but intricate clues available in plenty, for practical guidance.

     Reply

   October 31, 2012 at 9:09 am
2. PRADIP SHAH says:

   good judgement.

     Reply

   October 30, 2012 at 10:01 am