Important pointThe power of the Government and the Registrar in terms of Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, excludes matters which are covered by Section 125 i.e. revision by the Tribunal.

Headnote:(i) Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965—Section 128—Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951—Rule 244(2)(i)—Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966—Rule 41—Power of revision—Authority to pass order of pre-mature retirement—Sadul Shahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti is a society registered under the Act—Appellant was serving as its manager—He had attained the age of 56 years and served for more than 27 years—Chief Executive Officer issued an office order compulsorily retiring him from service under the provisions of Rule 244(2)(i) of the Service Rules—Appellant filed revision petition before the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies—Revision was allowed on ground of inapplicability of Rule 244(2) to the employer-society—It was held that appellant’s service conditions are governed by Rule 41 of the 1966 Rules—Under that Rule approval of the Registrar being a pre condition for premature retirement—Employer Society challenged the decision by filing revision before the State Government u/s 128 of the Act—Maintainability challenged—Whether revision before the State Government was maintainable—(Yes)—Two authorities, the State Government and the Registrar are not interchangeable.
       Held : Sub-section (2) of Section 124 provides that if the decision or order is made by the Registrar, appeal lies to the Government and if the decision or order is made by any other person, or a co-operative society, the appeal lies to the Registrar. Therefore, under Chapter XIII a clear distinction is made between the State Government and the Registrar. The test is whether the two authorities with concurrent revisional jurisdiction are equal in rank. It is, therefore, not correct as contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the two authorities i.e. the State Government and the Registrar are interchangeable. The power of the Government and the Registrar in terms of Section 128 excludes matters which are covered by Section 125 i.e. revision by the Tribunal. (Para 19)
       (ii) Words and Phrases—Word ‘delegate’—Meaning—Delegation of power does not imply parting with authority.
       Held : It is an accepted position in law that to ‘delegate’ to another is not to denude yourself. As was observed by Wills, J. in Huth v. Clarke (25 Q.B.D. 391, “In my opinion the word, in its general sense and as generally used, does not imply, or point to, a giving up of authority, but rather the conferring of authority upon someone else”. As observed by Lord Coleridge, C.J. in 25 Q.B.D. 304, the word ‘delegation’ implies that powers are committed to another person or body which are as a rule, always subject to resumption by the power delegating. The person delegating does not denude himself. (Per Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 1976 Reprint Ed. at page 316). Delegation implies also the power to withdraw delegation. As indicated in Wharton’s Law Lexicon, delegation is a sending away; a putting into commission; the assignment of a debt to another; the entrusting another with a general power to act for the good of those who depute him. The word ‘delegate’ means little more than an agent. An agent exercises no power of his own but only the powers of his principal. The observation in Huth’s case (supra) was referred to in Roop Chand’s case (supra). In general, a delegation of power does not imply parting with authority. The delegating body will retain not only power to revoke the grant, but also power to act concurrently on matters within the area of delegated authority except in so far as it may already have become bound by an act of its delegate. (Para 7)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, affirming the view of the learned Single Judge that the pre-mature retirement of appellant as directed by the respondents was in order.

3. A bird’s eye view of the factual position would suffice.

Sadul Shahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employer’) is a society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (in short the ‘Act’). The appellant was serving as its manager. On consideration of service records of the appellant the employer concluded that there was continuous fall in his work performance and as such it was in the public interest to pre-maturely retire him. He had attained the age of 56 years and served for more than 27 years. The Chief Executive officer issued an office order dated 1.4.1988 compulsorily retiring him from serving under the provisions of Rule 244(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (in short ‘Service Rules’). The appellant challenged the said order by way of a revision petition before the Additional Registrar-II, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan Jaipur (in short ‘Additional Registrar’). By order dated 9.5.1996, the revision was allowed on the ground that Rule 244(2) of the Service Rules was not applicable to the employer-society and on the other hand his service conditions were governed by Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 (in short the ‘Rules’). Under the said Rule approval of the Registrar is a condition precedent for pre-mature retirement. Employees-society challenged the decision of the Additional Registrar by way of revision before the State Government under Section 128 of the Act. The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short ‘Secretary’) found that the revision before the Additional Registrar was not competent as the order was passed by the Administrator who was not an officer subordinate to the Registrar. He was, therefore, of the view that the Additional Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the revision in terms of Section 128 of the Act. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Additional Registrar. The order was challenged by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) before the High Court.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, who heard the matter it was contended that the power of revision under Section 128 of the Act stood exhausted by order of the Additional Registrar and as such the Secretary could not have exercised the revisional power in respect of the same order. Learned Single Judge rejected the contention holding that Additional Registrar had exercised the delegated power of the Registrar and not of the State Government and, therefore, the revision before the State Government was maintainable and the Secretary had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In any event, Additional Registrar could not have entertained the revision. The judgment of learned Single Judge was questioned by Letters Patent Appeal. Stand of the appellant before the Division Bench was that once the delegate exercised the power of revision, it stands exhausted and such power cannot be exercised again by original authority. Reference was made to certain decisions of this Court in this context. The Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that the factual position was entirely different. Under Section 128 the revisional power can be exercised by two authorities i.e. Government and the Registrar. In the cases to which reference was made by the appellant there was a single authority who had delegated the power. It was further noted that under the Act revisional power is vested with two authorities. The Registrar who was the delegator of power to the Additional Registrar could not have entertained the revision. But there was no embargo on the State Government to entertain the revisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 22

Important pointThe power of the Government and the Registrar in terms of Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, excludes matters which are covered by Section 125 i.e. revision by the Tribunal.

Cases Referred (3)