1991 Supreme(AP) 391
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.ESWARA PRASAD, M.N.RAO
Toguru Sudhakar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
W.P.No. 5931/91 etc.
Decided On : 09-16-91
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy
Headnote:A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 as amended by Amendment Act No. 10 of 1991 and Constitution of India, Arts. 14,15 [1] and [3] - Amendment Act introducing third proviso to Sec. 31 [1] [a] providing nomination of two women members to Managing Committee Of a Society by Registrar - Not violative of Constitution of India. Rule 22[c] [1] issued in G.O.Ms.No.220 F & A Department, d/20.3.91 and Rule 22.A (3)[a] as substituted providing nomination of two women members to certain classes of Societies and division of electoral roll with reference to Constituencies comprising territorial jurisdiction of specified Societies Not invalid.
Interpretation of Statutes - Proviso when conflicts with a provision has to be construed as independent provision - When one Proviso conflicts with other Provisos the Proviso, which is last in point of time shall Prevail.
Held : Right to form a cooperative Society being only a statutory right and not a guaranteed fundamental right, no one can successfully invoke the aid of any assumed cooperative principle for challenging the validity of any law with respect to cooperative societies. The operation and application of cooperative principles must be within the four corners of the law, no cooperative principle if in conflict with any provision of the statute, rule or bye-law can hold the field.
Act No.1 of 1991 is valid legislative measure designed to protect and promote the interests of women and ensure their participation more effectively in a greater measure in the cooperative movement. Article 15 [3] of the Constitution fully protect the impugned Act from challenges based on Art. 14 and 15 [1]. The consequential rule 22C[1] issued in G.O.Ms.No.220 dt. 20-3-91 is also valid.
Election is not the exclusive norm or basic principle governing the functioning of Cooperative Societies. The structure of the Societies, the composition of the managing Committees and how the seats thereof have to be filled up are all matters governed by the statute, rules and bye-laws If law provides nomination also as one of the modes of filling the seats of managing Committees, ft cannot be faulted.
Division of electoral rolls of Cooperative Societies on the basis of territorial constituencies as envisaged in Rule 22 (A) [3] (a) of the Cooperative Rules Issued in G.O.Ms.No. 224 dt. 20-3-91 is valid. All Cooperative Societies other than those for the members of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Backward Class are comprehended by Sec. 31 [1] [b] and the source of power to constitute committees and division of Constituencies in respect of such societies being Sec. 31 [2] [1A], the impugned rule 22A[3][a] does not travel beyond the provisions of the statute and therefore, is intravires.
If a proviso is in conflict with the enacting provision it cannot be struck down, but must be construed as an independent provision. If there are two or more provisos [to a section or subsection or clause] and if one is in conflict with the rest, the proviso which is last in point of time shall prevail.
W.P. Dismissed.
Ramaswamy, J. (as he then was) in Multi Co-op. Association vs. State of A. P. ". The learned Judge while considering the question of depriving the elected committees of their powers, observed:"as stated earlier, democracy is the very essence of the co-operative for the reason that the co-operative would he failing if the principles of democratic control are not observed. The common economic need of the society is equal to all its members. Therefore, the will of the majority has to prevail in the working of the society. To achieve that end, the society shall be under the democratic control of its members. The management must rest in the members themselves and there should be no external interference except to the extent needed. The officers of the State are to guide with the expert and administrative guidance and counsel of the proper functioning of the society. Needless interference may prove detrimental to the working of the cooperative societies and the purpose for which they have been formed. The essential characteristic of ademocratic form of Government is the governance of the people, by the people and for the people. Freedom of franchise is the valuable right which must not be destroyed or delayed and the working of the democratic machinery ought not to be suspended or unlawfully interfered with. The basic features of a democracy is that the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole and is exercised through the elected representative. A democratic ideal will be delusive if a Government can stall its functioning of a society by delaying elections or not calling upon the general body to elect the members of the Committee. In such a contingency the democratic functioning remains suspended and all this has happened because of the remissness of the executive. When the elected representative is not entrusted without he right to manage his own affairs, the acts or omissions of the executive remains unrepresented, the wishes, the opinions and the interests of the electorate become mute and voiceless. The effective prevention of the democratic process by not conducting election is not a trite or a negligable omission. It cannot be lost sight of as trifling peccadillo or a mere trivia, or minutiae too trumpery to call for serious notice. The members of the society are entitled to the judgment, intelligent working out of their affairs, experience in that regard and guidance and counsel from their elected representatives. By not conducting the elections the executive is depriving the members of the society of their free will in the common pursuit and services of their elected representatives. . . . . "what is the scope and extent of the functioning of a co-operative society was explained by the learned Judge:"though the co-operative societies are homogeneous and autonomous bodies within the frame-work of its bye-laws, they are not absolute in their terms in realisation of their common pursuits; and the interests and pursuit of individual member is subservient to the interests of the members as a body, by the common undertakings. They are bound by the provisions of the Act, rules and the Bye-Laws". It is clear that from the above two cases, Shri Ramana Reddy cannot derive any support. Section 21-C, which was inforce until it was omitted by Act 10 of 1991, by clause (3) to the Explanation clearly laid down: "the Committee means an elected Committee". Section 21-C related to restriction on consecutive holding of offices of member and President. The constitutionality of Section 21-C came up for consideration before a Full Bench In K. Suryanarayana vs. W. C. Cooperative sugars Limited (6 supra ). The contention that "committee" meant only an elected committee was rejected by the Full Bench. "the expression "committee" will take in both an elected committee and a nominated committee. If the legislature intended by the expression "committee" used there as meaning only an elected committee, they would have said so clearly". We, there
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
