petitioner, submitted that before passing the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 did not give notice of inquiry and opportunity to rebut. He pointed out that as per the provision of law, the petitioner was required to be given time of two days (excluding holiday) to rebut the objections filed by the respondent no.3 and further the respondent no. 2 was required to give reasons for rejection and supply the copy of the order of rejection immediately on demand. He read out the provision of Rule 69 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules 2003 (said rules, for short) and argued that none of the above requirements were complied with by the respondent no. 2. Learned Shri A. D. Bhobe further argued that the expression “members of family” under Explanation to Section 60(1) (d) of the said Act means a wife, husband, father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter , son-inlaw, or daughter-in-law and it does not include the sister-in-law. He also argued that the petitioner has no connection with M/s. S. G. Modular. He contended that even otherwise, as per byelaw no. 20.2.6 of the said society, contract had to be a subsisting one as on the date of filing nomination. He showed the certificate dated 7/1/2012 issued by the Managing Director of the said society, which certifies that M/s. S. G. Modulars was given work during June, 2009 which has been completed and payment is made on
