MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are Managing Director and Secretary of the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, which is an apex cooperative society registered under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act of 1960'). The said Society had already promulgated the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Service Rules, 2007 (for short, 'the Rules of 2007') with the order and approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh. The said Society in its meeting dated 16-2-2013, proposed amendment in Rule 11(e) of the Rules of 2007 and that amendment in the Rules of 2007 in shape of Rule 11(e) was approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, on 5-3-2013 exercising power under Section 55(1) of the Act of 1960 and thereafter, in accordance with the amended Rules, the petitioner Society advertised the posts on 1-5-2013 for filling up the vacancy on the post of Accountant and Field Assistant. Respondents No.3 to 9 herein preferred appeal before the State Government under Section 77 of the Act of 1960. The State Government acting through the Hon'ble Minister by its impugned order dated 11-6-2013, set aside the amendment in the Rules duly approved by the Registrar under Section 55(1) of the Act of 1960 leading to filing of this writ petition by the petitioners questioning the order passed by the State Government dubbing the order as illegal and contrary to law.

(2.) Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, would submit that the amendment made in the Rules of 2007 of the petitioner Society in shape of Rule 11(e) of the Rules of 2007 was legislative in character and the said amendment was approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and thus, the order passed by the Registrar is in the nature of legislative power and the function of the Registrar in the said amendment in the Rules was legislative in character, therefore, interference in the said Rules could have been made by the State Government only when the statutory provisions have been contravened by amending the said Rules. The State Government has interfered with the order of the Registrar only on the ground that such an amendment is prejudicial to the interest of the private respondents herein who were at the relevant point of time working as daily-wagers. Such an order passed by the State Government is contrary to law. He would further submit that with effect from 13-2-2013, the amendment has been incorporated and by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 78 of the Act of 1960, against the order passed by the Registrar, appeal would lie to the Tribunal, as such, the order passed by the State Government is even incompetent. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

(3.) Learned State counsel would support the order of the Registrar that the Registrar has rightly exercised the power under Rule 11(e) of the Rules of 2007.