Back
1983 Supreme(Bom) 120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Chandurkar M.N., Actg. C.J. Kurdukar S.P., J.
Shri Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and another
.... Petitioners,
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another .... Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 1418, 1419, 1330 of l981 and 735 and 1298 of 1983? decided on 15–4-1983.
Advocate Appeared:
For petitioners -Dr. B. R. Naik and Y. R. Naik. For respondents-D. P. Hegde, Addl. Govt. Pleader. In Writ Petitions Nos. 1419 and 1330 of 1981: - For petitioners- Y. R. Naik.
For respondents- D. P. Hegde, Addl. Govt. Pleader. In Writ Petition No. 735 of 1983:-
For petitioners- C. J. Sawant with A jit P. Shah.
For respondents Nos. 1 and 2-M. A. Rane with R. N Dhorde and Dilip B. Bhonsah,
For respondent No. 3-D. P. Hegde, Addl. Govt. Pleader. . In Writ Petition No. 1298 of 1983:-
For petitioners- M. A. Rane with V. D. Hon and Dilip B. Bhonsale. Forrespondents-D. P. Hegde, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 19 - ARTICLE 300-A - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 (MAHARASHTRA) - SECTION 2(20) - SECTION 73 - SECTION 73A - VALIDITY - CLASSIFICATION - DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER - EXCESSIVE DELEGATION - WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO - WRIT PETITION - WRIT PETITION NO. 1418 OF 1981 - WRIT PETITION NO. 1419 OF 1981 - WRIT PETITION NO. 1330 OF 1981 - WRIT PETITION NO. 735 OF 1983 - WRIT PETITION NO. 1298 OF 1983.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of sections 73A(1) and (5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act). Section 73A(1) defines 'designated officer' and includes the Chairman and President of a society. Section 73A(5) bars a designated officer from continuing in office for more than six consecutive years and makes him ineligible for re-election or re-appointment for three years thereafter. The petitioners argued that section 73A(1) violated Article 14 of the Constitution because it discriminated between the Chairman and President and other officers of the society, and that section 73A(5) violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The State Government contended that the classification made in section 73A(1) was reasonable and that the power delegated to the State Government to notify additional designated officers was not excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the classification made in section 73A(1) was reasonable and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the power delegated to the State Government to notify additional designated officers was not excessive and that section 73A(5) did not violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed all the petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether section 73A(1) of the Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether section 73A(5) of the Act violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the power delegated to the State Government to notify additional designated officers was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification made in section 73A(1) was reasonable and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution because it was based on the intelligible differentia of the power to give directions in regard to the business of the society, and the differentia had a rational nexus to the object of the legislation, which was to prevent the co-operative societies from becoming the preserve of a few individuals. 2. Section 73A(5) did not violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution because it was a reasonable restriction on the right to hold office in a co-operative society and was necessary to achieve the object of the legislation. 3. The power delegated to the State Government to notify additional designated officers was not excessive because it was subject to two restrictions: (i) it could only be exercised in respect of an officer who satisfied the description in section 2(20) of the Act; and (ii) it could not be exercised in respect of a person who was appointed or nominated by the State Government or the Registrar.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the petitions.
2. Section 73 of the Act provides that the management of every society shall vest in a committee, constituted in accordance with the Act, the Rules and Bye-laws, which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed respectively by the Act, the.Rules and the Bye-laws.
3. Rules have been framed under the Act and are known as the “Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Under rule 8 matters in respect of which bye-laws are requir ed to be made by the society are specified. Clause (p) of rule 8(1) enables bye-laws to be made in respect of “the Chairman's powers, duties and func tions and his removal on his losing support of the majority”. Clause (o) enables bye-laws to be made in respect of “the mode of appointment either by election or otherwise and removal of members of the committee and other officer, if any, their duties and powers”. It is common knowledge that all Co-operative Societies registered under the Act make bye-laws deal ing with the constitution of the Managing Committee of the Society. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1418 of 1981 are (1) Shree Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Solapur, and (2) Madeppa Bandeppa Kadadi, who is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of petitioner No. 1-Society, which is a sugar factory engaged in the manufacture and processing of sugar by crushing sugarcane belonging to either its producer-members or outsiders. It is .not necessary for us for the purposes of deciding the ques tion raised in this petition to refer extensively to the constitution of the Board of Directors of petitioner No. 1-Society, but it is sufficient to mention that the Board of Directors has a Chairman who is paid an honorarium of Rs. 500 per month and he has to attend to the day to day affairs of the Society. Under bye-law 34(a) the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors have to be elected at the first meeting of the Board of Directors held after the election of members of the Board of Directors. In addition to the Board of Directors, there is also an Executive Committee of which the Chairman of the Board of Directors is the ex officio Chairman.
4. The Maharashtra Legislature passed in 1969 an Act called the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 27 of 1969) which came into force on 1st July 1971. It was by this Act that the provisions in section 73A were introduced in the Act. Section 73A(1) and (2) of the Act provide as follows : -
“73A. (1) In this section and in sections 73C, 73D and 73E, “a designated officer” means the Chairman and the President, and includes any other officer of the society as may be declared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be a designated officer, but does not include any officer appointed or nominated by the State Government or by the Registrar.
(2) No person shall, at the same time be or continue to be, a designated officer of more than one society falling in Category I or Category II or Category III of the categories mentioned below; and shall not be or continue to be a designated officer in more than two societies in the aggregate in the three categories : -
Category I.-Societies, the area of operation of which extends to the whole of the State.
Category II.- Societies, the area of operation of which does not extend
