Back
1984 Supreme(P&H) 65
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Kang and M.M.Punchhi JJ.
Bakhshish Singh
Versus
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 505 of 1981,
Decided On : JANUARY 19, 1984
Rule 45 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules 1963 is valid as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and has received the tacit approval of the State Legislature.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES 1963, RULE 45 - VALIDITY - RULE 45 IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1961 (ACT) AND IS VALID.
Fact of the Case:
The Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the State of Punjab, issued directives to co-operative societies on the conduct of their business in the wake of a change in the price of fertilizer fixed by the Government of India under the Fertilizer Control Order 1957. The petitioners challenged the directives, arguing that the Registrar was not authorized to issue such directives under Rule 45 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules 1963, which had been struck down by the High Court in Gobind Ram V/s. State of Punjab.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Rule 45 was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and was valid. The Court overruled the decision in Gobind Ram V/s. State of Punjab, holding that Rule 45, as it then stood, was intra vires.
Issues: Whether Rule 45 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules 1963 was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Rule 45 was valid because it had been placed before the State Legislature and had received its tacit approval. The Court also held that the rule was not arbitrary or unguided, as it was intended to ensure the successful conduct of business by co-operative societies.
Final Decision: The Court overruled the decision in Gobind Ram V/s. State of Punjab and held that Rule 45 was valid. The petitions challenging the directives issued by the Registrar were to be disposed of on merits by the Bench hearing them.
PUNCHHI, J.
1. The detailed referring order has itself focussed the question involved herein, placed before us for resolving. Minimally,- we may notice that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in State of Punjab, to conduct their business in a particular manner, in the wake of change of price of fertilizer fixed the Government of India under the Fertilizer Control Order 1957, (sic) and those directives being the subject matter challenge, attracted one of the defences that the Registrar was authorized issue such directives in exercise of his power under R.45 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules 1963, which reads as under:-
"Directives by Registrar for the successful conduct of the business:-
The Registrar may, from time to time, such directives as he considers necessary for the successful conduct of the business of a co-operative society or class of co-operative societies."
It was maintained on behalf of the petitioners that R.45 had been struck down in Gobind Ram V/s. State of Punjab, 1972 Cur LJ 425.: (AIR 1972 Punj 471), by B.R. Tuli, J., and thus it could not be adopted as a measure of defence by the respondent-Registrar. It was maintained on the other hand, that the rule laid down in Gobind Ram s case (supra) needed reconsideration. As is plain, the necessity of it was spelled out in the referring order.
2. In Gobind Ram s case (supra), B.R. Tuli, J., had taken the view that the rule was not consistent with the power vested in the State Government under S.85 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereunder power to frame Rules had been conferred on the State Government. It seems that the provisions of sub-section(3) of S.85 of the Act were not read before the Hon ble Judge in the right perspective. These may well be reproduced here:-
"Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before the State Legislature while it is in session for a total period of ten days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is laid or the session immediately following the Legislature agrees in making any modification in the rule or the Legislature agrees that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule."
3. Undeniably; the rule in question was placed before the State Legislature. Rather, no data has been placed on the record to show that it was not so placed. It has thus to be assumed that it was so placed.
4. Mr. Khoji, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of parliamentary practice, maintained that such rules are seldom placed before the Legislature and, possibly in the observance of that practice, the rule perhaps was not placed. On the anvil of M/s. Megha Singh and Co. V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 Punj and Har 297 (FB), it was suggested that in any case "non-laying of the rule before the Legislature" would not have invalidated such delegated legislation. That apart, the concluding portion of subsection (3) of S.85 of the Act makes the intendment of the Legislature clear that the rule becomes effective on its promulgation, and for the interregnum till it is placed before the State Legislature, anything previously done under that rule shall be valid in the event of any modification thereto or annulment. So, in either event, even if a rule has not been placed before the House, or has been placed, within and for the statutory period, but not modified or annulled, the rule is valid. However, two different consequences follow. In the first event, it remains delegated legislation and has to meet the test of being not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. But, in the other event, it having received the tacit approval of the
