SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 390

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Anil R. Dave, A.K.Sikri, JJ.
Satya Pal Anand – Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. & Anr. – Respondents
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION( C) No. 33644/2011
Decided On : 06-05-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Sections 3, 77(3)(b) and 77(6) of the Act are constitutionally valid.

Headnote:(a) M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Section 3 – Appointment of Registrar etc. – Most of the functions Administrative – Appointment of person with Law background would be open to challenge that he will be incapable of discharging administrative functions – Moreover, orders of Registrar are not final – Subject to appeal, revision and review before Tribunal – Section 77(3)(a) provides only a person who had been a Judge of a High Court or has held the office of a District Judge for not less than 5 years will be qualified for appointment of Chairman of the Tribunal – No infirmity in impugned judgment – Provision is not ultra vires. (Para 11, 12, 13)

       (2002) 5 SCC 685 – Relied upon

       (2013) 1 SCC 745 – Referred

       AIR 1967 SC 1494; AIR 1995 SC 2272; AIR 2000 SC 2023; 1990 Mah.L.J. 1064; (2010) 11 SCC 11; (2012) 10 SCC 353 – Distinguished

       b) M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Section 77 (3) (b) and Section 77 (6) – Held constitutional – Challenge to validity rejected. (Para 15)

       Facts of the case:

       The petitioner had filed PIL challenging the validity of Section 3 of the M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to the extent this provision permits the State Government to appoint the Registrar of the Co-operative Society, as well as Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar etc. without having any qualification in law. The petitioner also challenged proviso added to Section 77 (3)(b) and Section 77 (6) of the Act as unconstitutional. The petitioner had even given suggestion to the effect that the appointments of these presiding officers be made in manner presiding officers of the labour courts are appointed.

       Finding of the Court:

       The provisions are not ultra vires.

       

JUDGMENT

A.K.SIKRI,J. –

1. The petitioner herein had filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. In that petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Section 3 of the M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the extent this provision permits the State Government to appoint the Registrar of the Co-operative Society, as well as Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar etc. The petitioner also challenged proviso added to Section 77 (3)(b) and Section 77 (6) of the Act as unconstitutional. To put it succinctly, the grievance of the petitioner was that these provisions provide for appointment of persons not having any education in law, though discharging the judicial function, which was impermissible and ex-facie violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner had even given suggestion to the effect that the appointments of these presiding officers be made in manner presiding officers of the labour courts are appointed.

High Court dismissed the petition.

2. The Writ Petition was contested by the respondents on various grounds. In the first place, the very maintainability of the Writ Petition was assailed on the ground that the petitioner had not approached the High Court with clean hands and had suppressed the fact that he was a chronic litigant whose various cases were pending before the Cooperative Court. Therefore, he had personal interest in the matter. As such, he was not competent to file the Writ Petition in the nature of PIL. On merits, it was submitted that such Registrar, Addl. Registrar etc. function under the supervision of M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’). The Chairman of the Tribunal is a judicial officer. Again, both these authorities function under the over all superintendence of the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution. In several other enactments the administrative officers perform such quasi judicial functions.

3. After considering the submissions of both the parties, the High Court repelled the challenge of the petitioner to the vires of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.

4. Against the aforesaid judgment, present Special Leave Petition is preferred under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The petitioner has appeared in person and filed written submissions. At the time of arguments, he referred to and read out certain portion of those written submissions and submitted that he did not have to say anything more than what is contained therein. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand relied upon the reasoning given by the High Court in the impugned judgment to justify the said order. We have perused the judgment minutely and have also gone through the written submissions of the petitioner.

5. Before adverting to these submissions, we would like to reproduce the provisions of the Act which are subject matter of the present challenge:

“3. Registrar and other officers.-

(1) The State Government shall appoint a person to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State and may appoint one or more officers of the following categories to assist him, namely:

(a) Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies;

(b) Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies;

(c) Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies;

(d) Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies;

(e) Such other categories of officers as may be prescribed.

xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx”

77. Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal.

(3) (b) Of the other two members, one shall be an officer of Co-operative Department not below the rank of Joint Registrar and the other shall be non-official closely associated with co- operative movement or an Advocate or a Pleader having practical experience for a period of not less than fifteen years:

Provided that if the
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top