Back
1981 Supreme(AP) 327
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GANGADHARA RAO
Dangeti Ganapati Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 12-27-81
The government has the power to make rules for the constitution and election of committees of co-operative societies, including the division of constituencies, allocation of seats, and the choice of persons belonging to weaker sections of the society. Such rules are valid and do not violate the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1964 - RULE 22-A - CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE OF CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY - RESERVATION OF SEATS FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASSES - VALIDITY - RULE 22-A IS VALID AND DOES NOT OFFEND ARTICLES 14 AND 19 (1) (C) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of a Co-operative Sugar Factory, challenged the validity of Rule 22-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, which provided for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes in the committee of the factory. The petitioner contended that the rule violated Articles 14 and 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 22-A was valid and did not offend Articles 14 and 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India. The court found that the rule was made under Section 31 (1) (A) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, which empowered the government to make rules for the constitution and election of committees of co-operative societies, including the division of constituencies, allocation of seats, and the choice of persons belonging to weaker sections of the society. The court held that the rule was a valid exercise of this power and that it did not violate the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 22-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, is valid? 2. Whether Rule 22-A violates Articles 14 and 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Rule 22-A was a valid exercise of the power conferred on the government under Section 31 (1) (A) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. The court found that the rule was made to effectively implement the reservation provided for in Section 31 (1) (b) of the Act, which mandated reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes in the committees of co-operative societies. 2. The court held that Rule 22-A did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, race, sex, or place of birth. The court found that the rule was a reasonable classification made in the interest of the weaker sections of the society and that it did not create any arbitrary or unreasonable distinction between different groups of people. 3. The court also held that Rule 22-A did not violate Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to form associations. The court found that the rule did not prohibit the formation of co-operative societies or prevent individuals from becoming members of such societies. The court held that the rule merely regulated the composition of the committees of co-operative societies in order to ensure the representation of weaker sections of the society.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Rule 22-A was valid and did not offend Articles 14 and 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India.
( 1 ) RULE 22-A, Item 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative societies Rules, 1964, is questioned in this writ petition. That rule was introduced by an amendment in G O. Ms. No. 340, Food and Agriculture (Co-op-IV ). dated 30th July, 198. It was made under sub-section (1)of section 130 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) read with Section 31.
( 2 ) AMADALAVALASA Co-operative Agricultural Industrial Society Limited was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. It is running a Sugar Factory. Section 31 of the Andbra Pradesh Co-operative societies Act, 1 64 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for constitution of Committees. The general body of a society shall constitute a committee in accordance with the bye laws. For the purpose of electing members to a committee, the general body shall divide the number of members into constituencies and allot seats therefor, where the bye-laws so provide : in the absence of such bye-laws, if they elect from among all the members of the society. Bye-law 19 of the society provides for composition of Board of Directors. According to it, the Board shall consist of 19 Directors; 9 Directors have to be elected from supply members, of whom not less than 2 shall be from small farmers ; 1 Director to be elected from non-supply-members, 3 Directors to be nominated by the Government; 2 by the Industrial Finance Corporation ; 1 by the Life Insurauce Corporation ; 1 by the other Financing corporation that has provided block capital loan ; 1 by the financing bank that has provided working capital and 1 Director to be elected from among the workmen members. It means, there will be all elected Directors and and nominated Directors.
( 3 ) NOW according to Rule 22-A (Item 6) the Constitution of a committee of a Co-operative Sugar Factory should be as follows : The total number of seats is 23, out of which 14 are to be elected by members ; 1 to be by non-seasonal workers ; 3 are Government Directors and 5 are representatives of financing Institutions. Out of 14 elected seats, 2 are reserved for Scheduled castes ; 1 for Scheduled Tribes and 2 for Backward Classes; and the remaining 9 are open to all. Out of the 9 seats kept open to all, 2 seats shall be reserved, one for selection of a small farmer and the other for the election of a non-supply member in respect of constituencies having the largest number of small farmers and non-supply members respectively.
( 4 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bye-law of the Society has been approved by the Government and Rule 22-A runs counter to Section 31 (4) of the Act. It is stated that the elections for the sugar factory is not on the basis of caste or religion, but on the basis of supply of cane and thus there is discrimination between equals, which offends article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the petitioner has a fundamental right to form an association as he pleases under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution, and that right is now infringed by providing reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. In this connection, be has also drawn my attention to the difference in the language between Article 15 (4) and Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of india.
( 5 ) IT is true that bye-law 19 of the Society does not provide for any reservation of seat for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Backward classes. It provides for election of 9 Directors from supply-members of whom not less than 2 shall be from small farmers, and one Director from non-supply members. Rale 22-A provides for reservation of 2 seats for the scheduled Castes, 1 seat for Scheduled Tribes and 2 seats for Backward Classes to be elected by members out of the 14 seats. Thus, bye-law 19 is contrary to rule 22-A. But, Section 31 (1) (a) which was introduced by the Amending act 28 of 1978 presents an answer. It reads as fo
