1971 Supreme(Del) 306

High Court Of Delhi
FAQIR CHAND - Appellant
Versus
C.P.W.D.WORK CHARGED STAFF CONSUMERSCO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - Respondent
Regular 517 of 1968
Decided On : 11/15/1971

The Central Government has the power to extend a provincial law to a Chief Commissioner's province under section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, even if there is an existing law on the same subject in the Chief Commissioner's province.

Headnote:

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - Extension of Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 to Delhi - Validity - Notification modifying Section 73 of the Act - Repeal of Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 - Power of Central Government - Jurisdiction of Registrar under Section 54 - Grant of costs and interest.

Fact of the Case:

The Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 was extended to Delhi by a notification dated 8-1-1949 by the Central Government acting under section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, subject to certain modifications. Section 73 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act had repealed the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 insofar as it applied to the province of Bombay. Clause 12 of the Notification modified section 73 of the said Act while extending it to Delhi in the following words :- "for Section 73, the following section shall be substituted, namely:- Section 73. The Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 in so far as it applied to the province of Delhi, is hereby repealed. "

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Central Government had the power to extend the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 to Delhi under section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912. The modification of Section 73 of the Bombay Act made by clause 12 of the impugned notification dated 8-1-1949 was held to be valid as it was necessary to make the statute suitable to the local conditions of the Chief Commissioner's province. The court also held that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to grant costs and interest to the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner under section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the Central Government had the power to extend the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 to Delhi under section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912? 2. Whether the modification of Section 73 of the Bombay Act made by clause 12 of the impugned notification dated 8-1-1949 was valid? 3. Whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to grant costs and interest to the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner under section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Central Government had the power to extend the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 to Delhi under section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912. The court reasoned that the intention of the legislature in enacting section 7 was to save the central legislature, the time and trouble involved in enacting such laws for application to the Chief Commissioner's province as were already in force in the Governor's province. 2. The court held that the modification of Section 73 of the Bombay Act made by clause 12 of the impugned notification dated 8-1-1949 was valid as it was necessary to make the statute suitable to the local conditions of the Chief Commissioner's province. The court reasoned that the repeal of the Co-operative Societies Act 1912 had already been made by the Bombay Legislature by enacting section 73. The Central Government did not do so while extending the Bombay Law to Delhi. 3. The court held that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to grant costs and interest to the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner under section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act. The court reasoned that the dispute was only regarding the principal sum. There was no claim and, therefore, no dispute regarding costs or interest.

Final Decision: The writ petition was substantially dismissed but was only allowed to a small extent. The last part of the award granting costs and interest to the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner was quashed. The rest of the award was upheld. The orders passed by the Cooperative Tribunal in appeal and revision would also stand modified to the extent that they uphold the rest of the award but not the grant of costs and interest.