2006 (12) TMI 569 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2004.
2. Legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature to re-enact a law previously struck down.
3. Arbitrary and unconstitutional nature of the amendment.
4. Impact on democratic structure and management of co-operative societies.
5. Registrar's unbridled power and its implications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Amendment Act, 2004:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2004, which amended Section 49 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The amendment omitted Sub-sections (7AA) and (7AAA) and substituted a new Sub-section (8). The petitioners argued that this amendment was arbitrary, violative of Article 14, and against the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.

2. Legislative Competence of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature:
The petitioners contended that the Chhattisgarh State Legislature lacked competence to re-enact a law that had been previously struck down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Anurudh Prasad Shastri v. State of M.P. The court, however, held that the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly, established on 1st November 2000, had unimpeachable power to legislate or amend the law. Section 79 of the M.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, provided ample authority to the Government to amend the law.

3. Arbitrary and Unconstitutional Nature of the Amendment:
The petitioners argued that the amendment was arbitrary as it allowed the Registrar to assume control of the co-operative societies' management without a prescribed period for holding elections. This provision was seen as subversive of the democratic process and violative of Article 14. The court noted that the amendment put a premium on the default of the Registrar in holding elections and unreasonably denied the opportunity to elected members to manage the affairs of the society.

4. Impact on Democratic Structure and Management of Co-operative Societies:
The court emphasized that the democratic structure of co-operative societies was compromised by the amendment. The amendment allowed the Registrar to take over the management of the societies immediately after the expiry of the committee's term, without a clear timeframe for conducting new elections. This was seen as detrimental to the democratic functioning of the societies and contrary to the objectives of promoting democratic institutions.

5. Registrar's Unbridled Power and Its Implications:
The court highlighted the potential misuse of power by the Registrar, who, as an officer working under the Government, could be influenced by political motives. The amendment allowed the Registrar to control the management of the societies for an indefinite period, which was seen as arbitrary and violative of democratic principles.

Conclusion:
The court held that the impugned amendment was neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The amendment was aimed at maintaining democratic values by ensuring that no committee continued in office beyond its term. The court dismissed all the writ petitions and directed the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, to hold elections within six months to bring fresh elected bodies into existence.