1973 (10) TMI 52 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of Section 91 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.
2. Correctness of the decision in Premnarain v. Shilpakar Sahakari Mazdoor Sangh Ltd.
3. Validity of the orders extending the period of supersession of the committee of the petitioner-society.
4. Whether the State Government had the power to extend the period of supersession with retrospective effect.
5. Definition of "person" in Section 53 of the Act.
6. Validity of the election of petitioners Nos. 2, 3, and 4.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vires of Section 91 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961:
Section 91 grants the State Government the power to exempt any society from the provisions of the Act or apply such provisions with modifications. The petitioners challenged this as excessive delegation of legislative power. The court held that while Section 91 appears to confer uncontrolled and uncanalised powers, the preamble and provisions of the Act provide sufficient criteria and checks. The court emphasized that legislative delegation is permissible when it involves non-essential legislative functions and is done within the framework of the Act. The court concluded that Section 91 does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation, as it is guided by the policy, principles, and standards of the Act.

2. Correctness of the Decision in Premnarain v. Shilpakar Sahakari Mazdoor Sangh Ltd.:
The court reviewed the decision in Premnarain, where the State Government had relaxed the maximum period of supersession under Section 91, and the Registrar extended the period of supersession. The court found no error in the decision, as the State Government's order merely relaxed the limit prescribed in Section 53(3) and did not itself extend the period of supersession. The Registrar's extension of the period was valid as it was done with the State Government's sanction.

3. Validity of the Orders Extending the Period of Supersession:
The court examined the orders extending the period of supersession and found that the State Government's orders merely relaxed the maximum time limit but did not extend the period of supersession. The language of the orders indicated that they were auxiliary in nature, requiring a subsequent order by the competent authority to extend the period. Since no such order was made, the extensions were invalid.

4. Power of the State Government to Extend the Period of Supersession with Retrospective Effect:
The court held that the State Government did not have the power to extend the period of supersession with retrospective effect unless expressly empowered by the statute. The orders extending the period of supersession with retrospective effect were ultra vires and were struck down.

5. Definition of "Person" in Section 53 of the Act:
The court interpreted the word "person" in Section 53 to include a corporate body, such as a co-operative society, based on the inclusive definition provided in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, a co-operative society could be appointed to manage the affairs of another society.

6. Validity of the Election of Petitioners Nos. 2, 3, and 4:
The petitioners claimed to be duly elected office-bearers of the petitioner-society. However, the court found that the election was not conducted according to the prescribed procedure in Rule 41 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962. As a result, the election was invalid, and the petitioners could not be declared duly elected representatives.

Conclusion:
1. The legislature can delegate non-essential legislative functions to the executive, provided the delegation is within the framework of the policy and standards set by the Act.
2. Section 91 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, does not suffer from excessive delegation as it is guided by the Act's policy and principles.
3. The State Government's orders extending the period of supersession were invalid as they did not themselves extend the period but merely relaxed the time limit.
4. The State Government cannot extend the period of supersession with retrospective effect without express statutory authority.
5. The term "person" in Section 53 includes corporate bodies, such as co-operative societies.
6. The election of the petitioners was invalid as it did not follow the prescribed procedure.

Orders:
The orders passed by the State Government on May 24, 1971, October 24, 1972, and May 26, 1973, were quashed. A fresh election is to be held under the provisions of the Act and the rules. Each party shall bear its own costs.