Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Facts in Brief:

1. The petitioner, a Multi-State Co-operative Society having its registered office in Vadodara, got registered through Exhibit P1 under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 ('the MSCS Act' for brevity). In the course of time, the petitioner obtained an amended certificate of registration on 07.11.2014 extending its area of operations to other States, including the State of Kerala.

2. Initially, desirous of extending its area of operations to other States, the petitioner, in compliance with the conditions laid down in Exhibit P3 order of the first respondent, applied to the second respondent for a No-Objection Certificate to have a registration with a view to carrying on its operations in the State of Kerala as well. When his application was rejected by the second respondent through Exhibit P4, the petitioner filed what is said to be a statutory appeal before the third respondent, who, in turn, rejected it through Exhibit P6 order, thereby affirming the order of the second respondent. Eventually, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing Exhibits P4 and P6, as well as Exhibit P3, as being illegal, unconstitutional and void.

Summary of Submissions:

Petitioner's:

3. Sri. Arun Krishna Dhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that Section 4(2) of the Act and the proviso attached thereto specify the powers that can be delegated by the first respondent. According to him, the power concerning the registration has been expressly excluded from the purview of delegation. The learned counsel has also contended that even if any delegation were permissible, it could be effected only through a notification issued by the Central Government. In other words, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither can the first respondent qualify himself to be the Central Government, nor can Exhibit P3 be passed off as a notification delegating the power to the second respondent on the issue of registration, if at all it were to be permissible.

4. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to Sections 6 and 7 as well as Section 3(g) of the MSCS Act. It is to adumbrate the scope of the powers of the first respondent and also the preconditions to be complied with for having the registration of a Multi-State Co-operative Society, especially while extending its area of operations. He has further drawn my attention to Section 83 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 to contend that only when an order has been passed inter-alia under Section 7 of the State Act, the question of the third respondent exercising his power of appeal under Section 83 will arise. Differently expressed, when the first respondent or any of his delegates passes an order of rejection concerning registration of a Multi-State Co-operative Society, the appeal shall be under Section 99 of the MSCS Act.

5. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Exhibit P3 issued by the first respondent, being legislative in character, is ultra vires as no express power has been conferred on the first respondent to delegate his power of registration to any other authority. In this regard, the learned counsel has also laid emphasis on the statutory mandate that no power can be delegated to an authority of the State vis-a-vis the registration of a Multi-State Co-operative Society.

6. In the end, the learned counsel has also assailed Exhibits P4 and P6 orders of the primary authority and the Appellate Authority respectively. According to the learned counsel, Exhibits P4 and P6 are consequential to Exhibit P3, and once Exhibit P3 is ultra vires, the consequential orders also become void ab initio, without much ado. Thus, the learned counsel seeks interdiction of not only Exhibits P4 and P6 but also Exhibit P3, the sources of the second respondent's alleged power to reject the petitioner's application for NOC.

Respondents