Ordinance to Amend Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960

June 17, 2023

On June 7, an ordinance amending the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was signed, bringing about significant changes in the categorization of members. The amendment seeks to differentiate between “active” and “non-active” members, with implications for their rights and participation within cooperative societies.

Defining Active Membership

Under the amendment, an “active” member is defined as someone who actively participates in the society’s affairs and utilizes its services or products. This definition aims to recognize and reward members who engage and contribute to the cooperative’s functioning.

Identifying Non-Active Members

On the other hand, “non-active” members are those who have neither attended a single annual general body meeting nor utilized the society’s services for five consecutive years. This criterion is put in place to address concerns regarding inactive participation and encourage members to engage with their cooperative societies.

Consequences for Non-Active Members

Non-active members face significant consequences under the amendment. They are expelled from basic membership, depriving them of the right to vote in elections and disallowing them from standing for office. These measures are intended to maintain the democratic integrity and active involvement of members within cooperative societies.

Differing Perspectives

The Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd has voiced strong objections to the amendment, emphasizing the importance of democratic functioning and grassroots participation. They argue that the exclusion of members based on attendance or utilization fails to consider factors such as economic constraints and limited accessibility for certain groups.

Contrasting Reactions from Sugar Mills

Interestingly, some sugar mills, particularly in border areas, have not protested against the amendment. They view it as a means to curb cane poaching and political influence. Cooperative mills, with their constitutional obligation to procure cane, contend that this amendment will help regulate the industry and ensure fair practices.

Farmers’ Concerns and Demands

Farmers, however, have expressed apprehension about the amendment, seeing it as a step backward towards zone demarcations in the sugar sector. They argue that it may restrict their flexibility and impede their decision-making abilities. Farmers demand the immediate rescission of the amendment, urging the government to reconsider its impact on their livelihoods.

« Previous PostNext Post »