Subordinate legislation cannot supersede parent legislation, and there are limitations on the rule-making power of Cooperative Societies.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant Cooperative Department, State of Rajasthan for assailing the judgment/ final order dated 24.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.7465/2010 (Hari Ram Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge, accepted the writ petitions and struck down the contentious bye laws framed by the various District Milk Unions pertaining to elections of the Board of Directors of the District Milk Unions.

2. Shri Sudheer Tak, learned AAG assisted by Shri Saransh Vij, Advocate, representing the appellant State of Rajasthan, urged that the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench, is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. He urged that the learned Single Bench relied upon Section 28 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001'), to hold that the questioned bye laws were beyond the jurisdiction of the rule making power of the District Milk Unions.

He urged that Section 28 is meant for the members of the primary societies and not for the Cooperative Societies which are members of another Cooperative Society. He further submitted that the impugned bye laws are in nature of rights and liabilities being imposed on primary societies specifically in accordance with Schedule B appended to the Act of 2001, to be specific sub clauses Nos.(da), (e), (i) and (w) of clause 1 of the Schedule which empowers the District Milk Unions to specify the rights and liabilities of the primary societies. As per Mr. Tak, the bye laws in question were framed by taking recourse of this rule making power and are not without jurisdiction as held by learned Single Bench. On these grounds, Shri Tak vehemently and fervently implored the Court to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

3. Per Contra, learned Senior Counsel Shri Rajesh Joshi, assisted by Ms. Kamini Joshi, Advocate, representing the respondent Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Sudheer Tak. He urged that the bye laws are subordinate legislation and hence, the same cannot supersede the parent legislation which is Section 28 of the Act of 2001. He urged that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Devi Chand v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.161/1995) decided on 02.03.1995 and Pukh Raj Mehta v. State of Rajsthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.162/1995) decided on 02.03.1995. He thus urged that the appeal does not merit acceptance and should be dismissed.

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order and the material placed on record.

5. The short controversy which this Court is called upon to decide is whether the view taken by the learned Single Bench in striking down the questioned bye laws is correct or not. In this regard, the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :-

"8. Bye-laws -

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules, functions of every co-operative society shall be regulated by a set of bye-laws registered under this Act, the subject matter of which is enclosed as Schedule B; and no amendment therein shall be valid unless such amendment has been registered by the Registrar under the provisions of this Act. (2) An amendment of the by-laws of a co-operative society shall, unless it is expressed to come into operation on a particular day, come into force on the day, on which it is registered.

19. Votes of members -

Every member, other than a nominal and an associate member, of a co-operative society, shall be entitled to cast one vote.

20. Manner of exercising votes -

(1) Ev