Raj Pal Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....orderi.s. tiwana, j.1. this is last of the breed of writ petitions challenging the vires of the haryana co-operative societies (amendment) act, 19s7 (act no. 7 of 1988), (hereinafter referred to as the amending act). vide this amendment it was inter alia provided that the maximum tenure of a managing committee elected in terms of the haryana cooperative societies act, 1984, would be three years and with the expiry of that term, the state government is entitled to appoint an administrator to run the affairs of the society and he can be so appointed for a period of four years, but not more than a year at a time. since the term of the petitioners who had been elected as members of the board of directors of the society on may 2, 1984, had expired, the state government appointed an.....

Judgment:
ORDER

I.S. Tiwana, J.

1. This is last of the breed of writ petitions challenging the vires of the Haryana Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 19S7 (Act No. 7 of 1988), (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). Vide this amendment it was inter alia provided that the maximum tenure of a Managing Committee elected in terms of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, would be three years and with the expiry of that term, the State Government is entitled to appoint an Administrator to run the affairs of the Society and he can be so appointed for a period of four years, but not more than a year at a time. Since the term of the petitioners who had been elected as members of the Board of Directors of the Society on May 2, 1984, had expired, the State Government appointed an Administrator replacing the petitioners on January 27, 1988. Vide our judgment dated November 30, 1988, in the connected 26 writ petitions, we have negatived the above noted challenge to the vires of the Amending Act. This petition, however, survived on account of the additional plea raised on behalf of the petitioners which is dealt with hereunder.

2. The petitioners claim that their Society registered as 'The Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Panipat', is a Multi-State Co-operative Society in terms of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short, the 1984 Act) and, therefore, neither the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, as amended by the Amending Act is applicable to their case nor the State Government could appoint an Administrator to run the affairs of the Society as has been done vide order dated January 27, 1988; rather in terms of sub-section (3) of S. 35 of the 1984 Act, they were to continue to hold office 'till their successors are elected or nominated' under the Act or the rules or the bye-laws and assumed charge of their office. This stand is founded on alternative pleas in the following manner:--

(i) The Society was registered in the year 1955 'under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, which has been repealed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984.'

(ii) As per Section 2 of the later mentioned Act, the relevant part of which is reproduced hereunder. the Act applies to the Society of the petitioners:--

'2. The Act shall apply to-

(a) all co-operative societies, with objects not confined to one State, which were incorporated before the commencement of thisAct.

(i)... ... ... ...

(ii) under any other law relating to cooperative societies in force in any State.....

(b) ... ... ... ...

The plea is further amplified with the assertion that 'the area of operation of the sugar mills is beyond the State of Haryana and also includes the area of the erstwhile State of Pepsu and the State of Punjab. The individual persons from the District Ropar, Sangrur, Chandigarh, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar are members and share holders of the said Mill. Besides the individual members the Co-operative Societies beyond the State of Haryana are also members of the said Sugar Mills. The area of operation at the time of registration of the sugar mill as per by-law 3 is reproduced as under :-

'Area of operation: 3. The Area of operation shall be whole of Ambala Division and Pepsu.....''

(iii) In any case, the Society became a Multi-State Co-operative Society as a consequence of the reorganisation of the State of Punjab by virtue of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and States Reorganisation Act, 1966. In other words, the Society is completely covered by sub-section (1) of S. 95 of the 1984 Act, which reads as follows:-- '95(1). Where by virtue of the provisions of Part II of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), or any other enactment relating to reorganisation of States, any co-operative society which immediately before the day on which the reorganisation takes place had its objects confined to one State becomes as from that day, a multi-State co-operative society, it shall be deemed to be a multi-State cooperative society registered under the corresponding provisions of this Act and the bye-laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.'

3. The respondent authorities while seriously controverting the above noted factual stand of the petitioners with the plea that neither the petitioners' Society was ever registered or functioned under the 1984 Act nor under the preceding legislation, i.e., the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, also raised the plea -- apparently out of sheer panic -- that the 1984 Act itself is ultra vires the Constitution of India, being beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. In nutshell, their case is that this piece of legislation is not covered by entries 43 and 44 or any other entry in List I of Schedule 7 to the Constitution.

4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the respective pleas of the learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the stand taken by the petitioners. The unassailable facts which are available from the records of the Society itself which have been produced before us by Mr. Mohunta, learned Advocate General, Haryana, are as follows:--

On December 11, 1955, fourteen persons made an application in the prescribed form to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, for the registration of the Society under the name and style of 'The Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Panipat'. As per this form, the address of the Society was to be 'The Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Post Office Panipat, District Karnal'. Its area of operation was stated to be 'whole of the Ambala Division and Pepsu'. All the applicants who were to be the founder members of the Society were stated to be agriculturists by profession. On the same very day a report was submitted by the officer concerned with the following observations:--

' There is sufficient sugarcane in the Panipat and Sonepat area.

A mill is recommended to be registered.

Government will subscribe Rs. 20,00,000/-as shares. Shares worth Rs. 30,00,000/-are expected to be raised.

There will be sufficient response to collection of shares.

I recommend registration.'

This led to the registration of the Society under the provisions of the then prevalent law, i.e, Punjab Act No. 14 of 1955, and the Registrar issued a certificate, to that effect interms of S. 9 thereof. As per this provision, this certificate is the 'conclusive evidence of the fact that the Society therein mentioned is duly registered unless it is proved that the registration of the Society has been cancelled.' This Act was however, later repealed vide S. 86 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, but with the saving that 'anything done or any action taken under the repealed Act shall, to the extent of being, consistent with this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act.' This later mentioned Act was also repealed vide S. 132 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, but again with a saving provision (S. 127) to the effect that every Society which had been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1954 or the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 'shall be deemed to be registered under the corresponding provisions of this Act and its bye-laws shall so far as the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force until altered or rescinded'. In short, the registration of the Society, i.e., The Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. with effect from December 11, 1955, continues to be good and operative. As against this, not an iota of evidence or material has been produced before us on behalf of the petitioners to show that the Society was ever registered under the Multi-State (Unit) Co-operative Societies Act, 1942. As a matter of fact no statute by the name of 'Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1942' was ever in existence and the bald statement of the petitioners in paragraph 3 of the petition to the effect that their Society was registered under that statute virtually borders on falsity. As has been pointed out earlier, Act No. 6 of 1942 was known as 'The Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942'. It was this Act which was later replaced by the 1984 Act (Act No, 51 of 1984). Besides this, the respon-depts have also placed on record the latest list of Multi State/Unit Societies existing in the State of Haryana as conveyed by the Government of India, vide its letter No. 1-11011/38/87 L&M;, dated 27-1-1988 (Anne-xure R-II) wherein 'The panipat Sugar Mills Ltd., Panipat' does not find any mention. This also firmly establishes that the petitioners' Society was never declared as a Multi-State/Unit Society by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, nor did it ever function as such.

5. Now to examine the second contention of the petitioners; the whole case of theirs is that the 1984 Act applies to their Society and, therefore, in terms of S. 35 of the said Act, they are entitled to hold office till their successors are elected or nominated under the provisions of the Act and no Administrator could be appointed by the Government in their place to run the affairs of the Society. This plea, as already indicated, is projected in the light of S. 2 of the Act. Therefore, all that needs to be settled is as to whether the petitioners' Society was a Society 'with objects not confined to one State' at the time of its incorporation under Punjab Act No. 14 of 1955? To urge that the objects of the petitioners' Society were not confined to one State, i.e., the State of Punjab or the present State of Haryana, their learned counsel makes a reference to bye-laws 2 and 3 of the Society as registered at the time of its incorporation on December 11, 1955. These read as follows:--

OBJECTS

' 2. The objects of the Society are to promote the economic interest of its members and more particularly, to encourage the production of sugarcane and to develop the sugar industry on co-operative lines with a view to securing the advantage of large scale agricultural production and for this purpose:

(i) to establish Sugar Mills for manufacturing sugar jaggery and by-products from sugarcane, and to sell sugar and other products so manufactured to the best advantage and for this object:

(a) to purchase necessary site, construct building including houses for workers, arrange transport and construct roads;

(b) to purchase and instal machinery and other equipment;

(c) to purchase sugarcane, jaggery and other raw material required for the SugarMills;

(d) to promote the cultivation and development of sugarcane crop;

(e) to construct and rent godowns for storage and the sale of products of such mills;

(f) to raise deposits and loans from members and non-members as required for the above purpose;

(g) to contact with other co-operative societies and other persons for the purchase and sale of goods produced by the sugar mills and to appoint agents on payment of salary or commission, for such purchase and sales;

(h) to do all other things that are incidental to or necessary for the establishment and running of the sugar mills;

(ii) to acquire land by purchase, lease or otherwise for cultivation of sugarcane and other crops, and for the erection of machinery, building, etc.

(iii) to propagate improved methods of cultivation of sugarcane and to supply seed manure implements etc. for growing sugar-cane and other crops and to promote agricultural and industrial education among members.

(iv) to make advances on the security of sugarcane or its products, and issue seed loans to members for raising of crops and the development of agriculture.

(v) to instal machinery for the utilisation of by-products and to purchase other raw material for the purpose, and to sell the finished products,

(vi) to undertake such other activities as are incidental and conducive to the development of sugarcane and manufacture of sugar and allied products,

(vii) other measures designed to encourage in the members the spirit and practice of thrift,, mutual help and self-help.

AREA OF OPERATION

3. The area of operation shall be whole of Ambala Division and Pepsu.....'

The plea apears to be the result of a confusion. The petitioners take the 'main objects' of aSociety to be the same thing as 'the area of its operation'. These concepts have different connotations and are not interchangeable. This becomes further clear from a perusal of the form of application prescribed in Appendix 'A' to the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 and the rules framed under the 1984 Act wherein it is prescribed that at the time of the registration of a Society under either of these two statutes the applicants have to state these two things separately, i.e., the main objects of the Society and the area of its operation. The law envisages that at the time of its registration or incorporation a Society must clearly define its object or objects besides indicating the area of its operation. It is so required for the reason that members of the Society and all others dealing with it must know what is the permitted range of its enterprise. Further the principle or the main object/ objects of a Society have also to be distinguished from ancillary or subsidiary purposes. Thus the field or area of operation of a Society where it may carry on its activities or trade or business may be any, but all this has to be carried out with a view to fulfil the main object for which it was incorporated or registered. The use of the words 'objects' and 'purpose' in the opening part of Bye-law 2 of the Society as reproduced above, does not appear to be very happy one. Though as per the said bye-law the objects of the Society were to promote the economic interest of the members of the Society by encouraging the production of sugarcane and to develop the sugar industry on co-operative lines, yet it is manifest that this was the purpose which the Society wanted to achieve and for this establishment of the sugar mill was the main object of the Society. As per Webster's Dictionary, 1987 Edition, the word 'purpose' means 'a result which it is desired to obtain and which is kept in mind in performing an action'. Object means 'a thing or conception towards which the action of the thinking mind, considered as subject is directed'. The facts and circumstances of the case as adverted to in the earlier part of the judgment clearly disclose that the main purpose of formation or registration of the Society was to ameliorate or achieve the economic well-being of its members and this was to be soachieved by establishing a sugar mill at Pani-pat. In other words, the establishment of the sugar mill was the main object of the Society and it was towards it that the entire action of its thinking mind was directed. A reading of the bye-laws of the Society clearly indicates that the whole effort of the Society was to successfully establish a sugar mill at Panipat and hardly anything else. As has been highlighted earlier, the petitioners have not placed before us any material whatsoever to indicate or to suggest even remotely that the Society had done any thing towards the fulfilment of that object outside the erstwhile State of Punjab or the present State of Haryana. Merely because at the time of its incorporation or the registration of its bye-laws it was mentioned that the area of operation of the Society would be 'whole of Ambala Division and Pepsu' or some of its members are presently living in different Sates, does not mean that the Society had any object much less the main or the primary object to achieve in those area. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the Society in question is not a Society whose objects were 'not confined to one State' or is a Society to which 2 of the 1984 Act is applicable.

6. The third plea of the petitioners, as noticed above, has hardly any substance. As pointed out earlier, this plea has been taken in the light of sub-section (1) of S. 95 of the 1984 Act. This provision is attracted to Societies which became Multi-State Co-operative Societies as a result of the reorganisation of a particular State. It is not in dispute that with the promulgation of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956) the areas of erstwhile State of Pepsu were merged with Punjab. Similarly with the enforcement of the latter Act, i.e., 1966 Act, the present State of Haryana was carved out of the erstwhile State of Punjab. The case of the petitioners is not that initially the objects of their Society were confined to one State and as a result of the above noted Reorganisation Acts, their Society becarne a Multi-State Co-operative Society. On the contrary, their plea is that right from the day of its incorporation or registration, the Society was a Multi-State Co-operative Society. This plea we havealready negatived. Therefore, the Reorganisation Acts referred to above have not affected the petitioners' Society in any manner. Thus we repel this stand of the petitioners also.

7. In the light of the discussion above, we conclude that neither the Society of the petitioners of which they claim to be Directors was ever registered under the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 nor the main or the primary object of the Society was anything more than to establish a sugar mill at Panipat to be known as 'The Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills, Ltd.' Therefore, the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act,' 1984, are not attracted to the facts of this case and the stand of the petitioners in that regard is totally devoid of merit. In this view of the matter, we do not feel called upon to examine the plea of the respondents with regard to the vires of the 1984 Act. The net result is that this petition fails and is dismissed with costs which we'determine at Rs. 1000/-.

8. Petition dismissed.