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
(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
Thakur Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthampurayil Aboobacker
P.Sarathy v. State Bank of India
State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Assn.
Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare
Thakur Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthampurayil Aboobacker
P.Sarathy v. State Bank of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.