IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.
UPPINANGADY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY LTD. – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 26102, 27810, 27813, 27814, 27847, 27849, 27851, 27853, 27888, 27898, 27904, 27926, 27979, 27988, 27994, 27995, 28013, 28014, 28016, 28028, 28089, 28119, 28229, 28231, 28235, 28242, 28246, 28252, 28273, 28278, 28281, 28284, 28285, 28297, 28341, 28353, 28384, 28397, 28646 of 2023, Writ Petition Nos. 7450, 7451, 7452, 7490, 7552, 7566, 8460 of 2024
Decided On : 08-08-2024
Constitutional Law - Co-operative Societies - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Section 128-A - The court found Section 128-A unconstitutional as it infringed on the fundamental right to form co-operative societies, which includes the right to manage employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 128-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which allowed the Registrar to control recruitment and disciplinary actions in co-operative societies, arguing it violated their fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that Section 128-A imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to form co-operative societies, which includes managing employees, and thus was unconstitutional.
Issues: Whether Section 128-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 violates the fundamental right to form a co-operative society under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to form a co-operative society includes the right to manage its employees, and any law that completely removes this right is unconstitutional.
Result: Writ Petitions are allowed; Section 128-A is struck down as unconstitutional.
ORDER :
1. Section 128A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘Act of 1959’) has a weird history to tell. It successfully withstood the challenge to its constitutional validity in 1986. However, the said provision is omitted vide Ordinance No. 8 of 2009. On 29.03.2010, provision (re-numbered as 128-A) makes a comeback. And on 01.07.2020, said provision is once again omitted. On 27.07.2023, Section 128-A again finds its place in the Act of 1959, vide Act No. 27/2023.
2. But for a hyphen between ‘128’ and ‘A’, the provision is a replica of Section 128A, which has been declared ‘intra vires’ in PCLD Bank Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 1986 Karnataka 427. However, in this batch of petitions, the provision once again faces the challenge to its constitutional validity.
3. Some of the petitioners are the Primary Co-operative Societies registered under the Act of 1959, others are the members or office bearers of the Primary co-operative societies.
4. Quite obviously, the State and the interveners (Federal Societies) have raised the following preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions.
(b) The Writ Petitions are premature; there is no cause of action as the Registrar of co-operative societies (‘Registrar’ for short) has not implemented the Regulations under Section 128-A of the Act of 1959. The right to challenge will accrue only in case, the Regulations violate the fundamental rights of the members of the Society.
5. Section 128-A of the Act of 1959 was introduced by way of amendment vide Act No. 27/2023. The amended provision reads as under:
1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, where the Registrar, in the interest of the co-operative movement, considers that the creation of a common cadre of employees for any class of co- operative societies is necessary, he shall authorize one or more federal societies to which such class of co-operative societies is affiliated to exercise the power of appointment, transfer and disciplinary action in respect of such categories of employees of that class of co-operative societies as may be specified by him and make such regulations as may be necessary for carrying out the said purpose. Where such federal society is so authorised by the Registrar, the affiliated co- operative societies shall not have powers to deal with such categories of employees except to the extent the regulations may permit.
2. The Registrar shall have the power to require the affiliated co-operative societies to make contribution of such sum every year towards expenditure, as the federal society is likely to incur or has incurred for the purpose. If any co- operative society fails to pay the said sum to such authority as may be specified by the Registrar and within the time fixed by him, the Registrar may on the application of the authority, and after such enquiry as he may consider necessary, make an order requiring the co-operative society to pay the amount, and every such order shall be enforceable against the co-operative society as if it were an award under Section 71.”
6. The 97th amendment to the Constitution of India, came into effect on 15.02.2012. The relevant amendments for the discussion in these petitions are the amendment to Article 19(1)(c) and the introduction of Article 43-B.
7. On the plea of res judicata. The plea of res judicata is not available. It is indeed true that the constitutional validity of Section 128-A was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, in 1986, in PCLD Bank supra. Said provision was omitted later, and re-introduced in 2023. However, significant developments have taken place since the validity of the said provision was upheld in 1986.
8. The 97th a
Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam
Akshay N. Patel v. Reserve Bank of India
Daman Singh vs. the State of Punjab
K.K. Kochunni vs. State of Madras
K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India
Kasthurilal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Kusum Ignots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India
M/s. Laxmi Khandsari and Others vs. State of U.P and Others
S. Bagavathy vs. State of Tamil Nadu
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. McDowell and Company
The right to form a co-operative society encompasses the right to manage its employees, and any law infringing this right is unconstitutional.
The provisions for a common cadre in the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act do not violate constitutional autonomy, as reasonable State regulation is permissible for effective governance.
The court declared Section 28(2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 unconstitutional for violating democratic control and autonomy principles, affirming the right to form associations un....
The right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental right, and arbitrary term restrictions violate the autonomy of co-operative societies.
The restriction on designated officers serving beyond six years under Section 73-A(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is constitutionally valid as it promotes democratic governance and ....
The court affirmed the Government's authority to establish Recruitment Committees for Milk Producers' Societies under Section 80BB of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, validating recruitment pro....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Cooperative Credit Society has autonomous power to fix salary as per its financial status, and the guidelines issued by the government to ....
The Registrar cannot direct the deletion of a Gram Panchayat from a co-operative society's operational area, affirming multiple PACS can coexist in the same area, promoting autonomy as per the KCS Ac....
Point of law: A provision of the Act providing for a shorter period of limitation cannot be declared to be unconstitutional simply because in some of the Statutes a longer period of limitation has be....
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.