(1.) SRI K.A. Ariga, learned AGA accepts notice on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned advocates appearing on both sides, case is taken up for final disposal. Main prayer in this writ petition is for a declaration that the second proviso to sub -section (1) of S. 63 of the Karnataka Co -operative Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'), as amended by S. 34 of Karnataka Act No. 3 of 2013, as unconstitutional and void and for quashing of the consequential communication - panel of Auditors, sent by the Director of Co -operative Audit and for grant of consequential reliefs.
(2.) SEEKING identical reliefs, certain co -operative societies, registered under the Act, had filed W.P. Nos. 79003 -79014/2013. After hearing, the following questions were raised therein, for determination: (i) Whether restricting the choice of a Co -operative Society to a panel of auditors and auditing firms, not exceeding ten, by the second proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 63 of the Act is arbitrary and violative of the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243ZM of the Constitution? Whether the restriction is also violative of Article 19(1)(c) and (g) of the Constitution? (ii) Whether the impugned communications restricting the choice of a Co -operative Society to a panel of three Auditors/Auditing firms is illegal? Upon consideration of the rival contentions and while allowing the writ petitions on 05.07.2013, it has been held as follows: 9. In my opinion, the restriction imposed by the second proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 63 of the Act restricting the choice of a Co -operative Society to choose an Auditor or an Auditing firm from a panel of auditors and auditing firms, not exceeding ten, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also violative of the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243ZM of the Constitution as the said constitutional proviso provides for a panel for the State i.e. one panel for the State and also gives a choice to every co -operative Society to choose any of the eligible auditors or auditing firms from the said panel. Hence, providing separate panels of a few names to every Cooperative Society in the State as per the impugned proviso is violative of the constitutional proviso. Though under Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa, the context does not admit of such a interpretation of the constitutional proviso i.e. permitting plurality of panels, like giving separate panels of a few names to every Co -operative Society in the State as is done now. Any law which contravenes the Constitutional provisions is unconstitutional and void. Therefore, the second proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 63 of the Act which restricts the choice of a Co -operative Society to choose an auditor or an auditing firm from a panel, not exceeding ten, is unconstitutional and void being violative of Article 14 and the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243ZM of the Constitution. Consequently, the communication sent to each of the petitioners giving a panel of only three names of auditors and auditing firms to select any one of them from the said panel to audit the accounts of their respective Cooperative Societies is also illegal. In the view I have taken, it is unnecessary to examine the contention re violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(c) and (g) of the Constitution. For the reasons stated above, I make the following order: The second proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 63 of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959 is declared as unconstitutional and void and shall not be given effect to. Consequently, impugned communications are also set aside. Perused the aforesaid Order. It is trite that a prior decision of this Court on identical facts and law binds the Court on the same points in a later case. Here, I have an Order, admittedly rendered on facts and law, indistinguishably identical, and that Order must bind. Following the Order, noticed supra, this writ petition is allowed. Since sub -section (1) of S. 63 of the Act, as amended by S. 34 of Karnataka Act No. 3 of 2013 having already been declared as unconstitutional, void and be not given effect to, it is unnecessary to grant the main declaratory relief prayed in this petition. However, in view of the Order, noticed supra, the impugned panel of auditors vide Annexure -C being arbitrary is quashed. Consequently, the petitioner shall get its accounts audited, in accordance with law. No costs. Sri K.A. Ariga is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.