Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (FB)
Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, CJ., Dilip Gupta and Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, JJ.
Committee of Management of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57233 of 2012
Decided On : 14.3.2014.
JUDGMENT :Writ Jurisdiction - U.P. Co-operative Societies Act - Section 29, Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 243-ZH, 243-ZJ, 243-ZK, 243-ZL - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and the relevant articles of the Constitution of India, including 243-ZH, 243-ZJ, 243-ZK, and 243-ZL. The court emphasized the interpretation and implications of Section 29(5) prior to the amendment by U.P. Act 13 of 2013, and the subsequent changes brought about by the amendment.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed the issue of whether the High Court may issue a writ, order, or direction for the continuance of a Committee of Management of a co-operative society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the term of the co-operative society having come to an end in accordance with Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that under the provisions of Section 29(5) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, as they stood immediately prior to the amendment brought about by U.P. Act 13 of 2013, the High Court had no power in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the continuance of a Committee of Management of a co-operative society even though the term of such a society had come to an end. However, the court noted that the position has been altered by Amending Act 13 of 2013, which substituted sub-section (5) with a completely different provision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 29(5) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and the legislative changes brought about by Amending Act 13 of 2013. The court emphasized that the High Court's equitable power under Article 226 cannot override a legislative mandate, and that the discretionary powers of the Court must be in accordance with legislative prescriptions.
Final Decision: The court answered the reference by holding that the High Court had no power to direct the continuance of a Committee of Management of a co-operative society under Section 29(5) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, prior to the amendment by U.P. Act 13 of 2013. The court noted that the position has been altered by the amendment, and the consequences of the amendment were discussed.
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
This Full Bench has been constituted in pursuance of a reference made on 14 September 2012 by a Division Bench of the following question:
"Whether the High Court may issue a writ, order or direction in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for continuance of a Committee of Management of a co-operative society even though the term of the co-operative society has come to an end in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.
2. The issue turns upon an interpretation of Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Immediately before Section 29 was amended with effect from 28 March 2013 by U.P. Act 13 of 2013, Section 29, as it stood, read as follows:
"29. Committee of Management. - (1) The management of every co-operative society shall vest in a Committee of Management constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and the bye-laws, which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by this Act, the rules and the bye-laws.
(2) (a) The term of every Committee of Management shall be three years and the term of the elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of such Committee.
(b) The provisions of clause (a) shall apply also to a Committee of Management in existence on the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Second Amendment) Act, 2011 and to the elected members of such Committee.
(c) The term of the Committee of Management, which has completed on or before the date of commencement of the Act referred to in clause (b), the period of three years from the date of its constitution and the term of its elected members, shall expire on such commencement.
(3) Election to reconstitute the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society shall be completed in the prescribed manner under the superintendence, control and direction of the Registrar at least fifteen days before the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management and the members so elected shall replace the Committee of Management whose term expires under sub-section (2):
Provided that where the Registrar is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it difficult for him to hold the election on the date fixed, he may postpone the election, and all proceedings with reference to the election shall be commenced afresh in all respects.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary or the Managing Director of the Co-operative Society, as the case may be, to send to the Registrar, four months before the expiry of the term of Committee of Management, a requisition for conducting the election and to furnish all such information as may be required by him, within such period as may be fixed by him.
(5)(a) Where, for any reason whatsoever, the election of the elected members of the Committee of Management has not taken place or could not take place before the expiry of the term of elected members, the Committee of Management shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder, or the bye-laws of the society, cease to exist on the expiry of such term.
(b) On or as soon as may be after the expiry of such term, the Registrar shall appoint an Administrator or a Committee of Administrators (hereinafter, in this section, referred to as the Committee) for the management of the affairs of the society until the reconstitution of the Committee of Management in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society and the Registrar shall have the power to change the Administrator or, as the case may be, any member of the Committee or to appoint Committee in place of an Administrator or vice versa from time to time.
(c) Where a Committee is appointed under clause (b), it shall consist of a Chairman and such other members not exceeding eight as may be nominated by
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
