Back
1998 Supreme(All) 832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Binod Kumar Roy and R. K. Mahajan, JJ.
ARUN KUMAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 23329 Of 1998
Decided On : 08/06/1998
D.S.P.Singh, S.P.SINGH
THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE COMPETENCE TO AMEND THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1965 (U. P. ACT NO. 11 OF 1966), AND THE REDUCTION OF THE TERM OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT FROM 5 YEARS TO 3 YEARS IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THAT POWER.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1998 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - AMENDMENT OF SECTION 29(2) - REDUCTION OF TERM OF COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT FROM 5 YEARS TO 3 YEARS - VALIDITY - U. P. ACT NO. 19 OF 1998 - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 29(2), 29(3), 29(4) AND 29(5) - SEPERABILITY OF SUB-SECTIONS - JURISDICTION OF REGISTRAR TO APPOINT ADMINISTRATOR OR COMMITTEE OF ADMINISTRATORS - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1998 (U. P. ACT 19 OF 1998), WHICH AMENDED SECTION 29(2) OF THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1965 (U. P. ACT NO. 11 OF 1966), REDUCING THE TERM OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT FROM 5 YEARS TO 3 YEARS.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE AMENDMENT, HOLDING THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD THE COMPETENCE TO AMEND THE ACT AND THAT THE REDUCTION IN TERM WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THAT POWER. THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT SUB-SECTIONS (3) AND (4) OF SECTION 29 WERE SEPARABLE FROM SUB-SECTION (2) AND THAT THE DECISION IN A. P. KRISHNASWAMI, RELIED UPON BY THE PETITIONER, WAS NOT APPLICABLE. FURTHER, THE COURT HELD THAT THE JURISDICTION TO APPOINT AN ADMINISTRATOR OR COMMITTEE OF ADMINISTRATORS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SOCIETY'S AFFAIRS UNTIL THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT VESTED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) OF THE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1998 (U. P. ACT 19 OF 1998) IS CONSTITUTIONAL? 2. WHETHER THE REDUCTION OF THE TERM OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT FROM 5 YEARS TO 3 YEARS IS VALID? 3. WHETHER SUB-SECTIONS (3) AND (4) OF SECTION 29 OF THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1965 (U. P. ACT NO. 11 OF 1966) ARE SEPARABLE FROM SUB-SECTION (2)? 4. WHETHER THE JURISDICTION TO APPOINT AN ADMINISTRATOR OR COMMITTEE OF ADMINISTRATORS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SOCIETY'S AFFAIRS UNTIL THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT VESTS WITH THE REGISTRAR OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE COMPETENCE TO AMEND THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1965 (U. P. ACT NO. 11 OF 1966). 2. THE REDUCTION OF THE TERM OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT FROM 5 YEARS TO 3 YEARS IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATURE'S POWER TO AMEND THE ACT. 3. SUB-SECTIONS (3) AND (4) OF SECTION 29 OF THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1965 (U. P. ACT NO. 11 OF 1966) ARE SEPARABLE FROM SUB-SECTION (2). 4. THE JURISDICTION TO APPOINT AN ADMINISTRATOR OR COMMITTEE OF ADMINISTRATORS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SOCIETY'S AFFAIRS UNTIL THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT VESTS WITH THE REGISTRAR OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) OF THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1997 (U. P. ACT NO. 1 OF 1997).
Final Decision: THE WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1998 (U. P. ACT 19 OF 1998) WAS DISMISSED.
( 1 ) THE prayer of the petitioner is to declare the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Second amendment) Act, 1998 (U. P. Act 19 of 1998 ). amending Section 29 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh cooperative Societies Act. 1965 (U. P. Act No. 11 of 1966), as amended by the Uttar Pradesh co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act. 1997 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1997) ultra vires and strike it down and to quash the order dated 9. 7. 1998 passed by the Deputy Registrar, U. P. Co-operative societies, Azamgarh Division. Azamgarh. (Opposite Party No. 2) (as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ petition ).
( 2 ) WE had upheld the vires of U. P. Act No. 19 of 1998 amending subsection (2) of Section 29 of the U. P. Act No. 1 of 1997 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22045 of 1998 Dal Singh Yadav v. State of U. P. and another, decided on 16. 7. 1998.
( 3 ) THE Submissions : the main thrust of the submission of Dr. D. S. P. Slngh. learned counsel for the petitioner is "that by Act No. 19 of 1998 the State Legislature has merely amended sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and not the other provisions of the said section, which have to be read together, and if it read together, the act becomes unworkable". He further submitted that "the State Government has no power to appoint an Administrator to look after the affairs of the Committee of Management". In regard to our Judgment in Dot Singh Vadau (supra), he contended that "the petitioner of that case had failed to demonstrate the vires of the Act whereas "under sub-section (4) Section 29 of the Act. It is the duty of the Secretary of the Co-operative Society to send requisition to the Registrar for the purposes of holding election 4 months earlier than the expiry of the term and under Section 29 (3), it is the duty of the Registrar to hold election 15 days earlier than the expiry of the term of the Co-operative Societies so that the new Committee of Management could replace the outgoing committee of Management" which was not pressed before us for our consideration. Reducing the period of 5 years to 3 years, the Legislative Intention enshrined in sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 29 of the Act stands breached/violated by the Impugned Amendment Act. Further article 14 negatives even arbitrariness of the Legislative Acts. 3. 1 in support of his contention aforementioned. Mr. Singh placed strong reliance on A. P. Krishnaswami v. State of Madras, AIR 1964 SC 151, at page 1519, wherein it was held by the apex Court as follows : "sections 5 and 50 are the pivotal provisions of the Act. and if they fall, then we are of opinion that the whole Act must be struck down as unconstitutional. The working of the entire Act depends on Section 5 which provides for celling and Section 50 which provides for compensation. If these sections are unconstitutional, as we hold they aje. the whole Act must fall. "
( 4 ) MR. H. R. Mtsra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, contended as follows : (i) The petitioner is a notified co-operative society. By virtue of the proviso attached to sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Act. this provision is not applicable to the petitioner. Accordingly, the entire arguments of Mr. Singh falls like a house of cards. (ii) Apart from the reasons which were advanced by the learned Advocate General in Dal Slngh yadav (supra), which we had accepted, are reiterated, Section 29 of the Act was amended with a view to enshrine smooth and efficient working of the Committee of Management of the co-operative Societies as stated in the Object and Reasons of the Bill and the Legislature decided to reduce the terms from 5 years to 3 years in respect of the Committee of Management which are already constituted or which may be constituted hereinafter which cannot be termed arbitrary. The question of arbitrariness has been merely stated to be rejected as nothing has bee
