SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Chh) 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Goutam Bhaduri, Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
Praveen Kumar Chandrakar (Died) Through Lrs. And ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-operative Department - Respondent
WPC No. 3131 of 2020, WPC Nos. 40, 348, 352, 367, 382, 410, 517, 549, 572, 593, 595, 609, 705, 812, 814, 844, 946, 947, 993, 1043, 1077, 1094, 1095, 1309, 1313, 1411, 1429, 1543, 1603, 1747, 2710, 2716, 2737, 2993 of 2021
Decided On : 29-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Amit Tirkey, Advocate; Shri H.S. Patel, Avocate; Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate; Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate; Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Manisha Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri A. N. Pandey, Advocate; Ms. Isha Jajodia, Advocate; & Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Shri Jitendra Pali, Dy. AG

The Court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality and the burden of proof on the petitioner to demonstrate unconstitutionality.

Headnote:

Amendment - Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act - Section 19-A, Section 49, Section 58-B, Section 77, Section 77-AA

Fact of the Case:

The petitions challenged the vires of the amendment made in certain sections of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The tenure of the Society Members/Directors elected in 2017 was also under challenge.

Finding of the Court:

The primary challenge based on the 97th amendment of 2011 was lacking as per the Supreme Court's judgment. The Court analyzed the specific sections challenged and found them to be within the legislative competence and not ultravires.

Issues: The issues revolved around the constitutionality of the amendments made in the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the strong presumption of constitutionality and the burden of proof on the petitioner to demonstrate unconstitutionality. It held that the amendments did not transgress into legislative turf and were within the legislative competence.

Final Decision: All the petitions were dismissed, and the Court commented only on the vires of the challenged sections.

JUDGMENT : .

Goutam Bhaduri, J

Heard.

1. All the petitions are being heard together as in few of the cases, the vires of the amendment made in certain sections by the State, which has been notified on 13th of October, 2020 in the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1960') is under challenge.

2. Except the writ petitions Nos. WPC No.3131/2020 (Praveen Kumar Chandrakar (died) Through Lrs Versus State Of Chhattisgarh), 367/2020 (Kamta Prasad Patel & another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others) and WPC No.814/2021 (Amit Kumar Khatri & others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others), the other petitions touch upon the direction issued on the basis of the amendment carried out in the Act, 1960 and Reorganization of the Societies Act. In the other petitions, the tenure of the Society Members/Directors were under challenge would show that they were elected in the year 2017 and the period lasted up till 2022 and now being 2023, by efflux of period of time, except the above referred petitions, all the petitions have become infructuous.

3. With respect to the petitions referred hereinabove vires have been challenged on five grounds which are as under:-

The first challenge is the omission of clause (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 19-A of the Act, 1960 by the notification dated 14th of October, 2020 (Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2020 i.e. No.18 of 2020). Prior to omission clause (d) stood as:-

(d) if he is disqualified under Section 48-A of the Act;

Whereas prior to omission clause (e) stood as:-

(e) if he is a person who has been dismissed from the service of any co-operative institution of Government service.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the disqualification which has a reference of M.P. Amendment Act No.12 of 1994, would curtail the right. Likewise, the omission of clause (d) which also takes into sweep the person who has been dismissed from service of any cooperative institution or Government service, would also curtail the right of the general public at large.

4. The Second challenge is the addition of proviso clause to sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the Act, 1960, which was substituted by the amendment Act 18 of 2020. Sub-section (8) of Section 49 reads as under:-

“49. Annural General Meeting.-

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or Rules made thereunder the election of a board shall be conducted before the expiry of the term of the board. If the elections are not held before the expiry of the term, or board of society ceases to function due to the order of any court or otherwise all the members of the board shall be deemed to have vacated their seats and the powers of the board shall be deemed to have been vested in the Registrar and the [State Co-operative Election Commission] shall hold elections within six months, or twelve months in case of the Co-operative Banks:”

Proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 49 of the Act, 1960 reads as under:-

“Provided that the registrar may authorize any officer or a person or a committee of persons to exercise the powers of the board vested in him/Committee under this sub-section; and the officer or the person or the Committee of persons so authorized shall exercise such power from the date of such authorization for a period specified by the registrar or till the elections are held by the state Cooperative Election Commission, whichever is earlier:

Provided further that in case of committee of persons, the registrar may nominate one person as a chairman and one person as vice chairman, and that such person(s) may be nominated from among the members of committee itself.

Provided further also that in case of any non-official person or persons, their qualifications shall be such as may be prescribed”

It is submitted by the petitioner that such addition of right conferring power to the Registrar to further delegate it to any officer would be ultravires to sub-sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top