K P SHENOY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by a member of the Co-operative Society challenging the validity of Section 28-A(2) and Section 29-D of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act ('Act' for short). Petitioner contends that the said two provisions are inconsistent with and violative of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution as they place unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of the petitioner to form a society and to manage its affairs which is a concomitant right to form a society; that the impugned provisions interfere with the right of representation in the committee of management; that Section 28-A of the Act places unreasonable restriction in providing for reservations at a particular percentage of the Board of Directors in favour of members who are Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or women; that the society is a voluntary organisation of members and such restriction cannot be placed and no law can be enacted placing such restriction; that the restriction placed on the members of the Co-operative Society that a member of the society cannot continue as an officer bearer in the committee of management beyond the period of six years unless he steps down from the office for atleast a period of three years is also for a similar reason inconsistent with Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Elaborating this submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the right to form an association as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) includes the right to administer such association which also means that the members of the society will have the freedom to choose the composition of committee of management and when such choice is restricted, the law so enacted becomes a restriction and is unreasonable. Therefore, it is submitted that the provisions of law impugned herein are infringement on the right to exercise the right that is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.

(2.) It is submitted further that, the parent Act had received the assent of the President; that provisions of Sections 28-A and 29-D have been introduced in the Act by amending the Act by Act No. 19 of 1976 and Karnataka Act No. 5 of 1984. It is submitted that, when the parent Act had received the assent of the President, all amendments to the Act must also receive the assent of the President, and in support of this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the decisions in Syed Ahmed Aga v State of Mysore and Another; Ananda Kumar Chakraborthy and Another v State of West Bengal and Others and M.P.V. Sundararamier and Company and Others v State of Andhra Pradesh and Another .

(3.) It is further contended that the decision in Tippannappa v State of Karnataka and Others , by which one of the provisions of the Act impugned herein is upheld was a case arising or raised a challenge to the constitutionality of the provisions under Article 19(1)(g) and not under Article 19(1)(c) and therefore, that decision has no application to the facts of the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the decisions in Smt. Damyanti Naranga v Union of India and Others ; Asom Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Hedayatpur-Gauhati-3 and Another v State of Assam and Others and Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change, Patna v State of Bihar and Others, to contend that the State cannot enact a law which interferes with the right to form an association or administration thereof.