SIVARAMAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECTION 81 of the Kerala Co -operative Societies Act,1969,as it stood when the Act came into force on 11th April 1969, provided for the constitution of a Tribunal consisting of three members to exercise the powers and discharge the functions conferred on the Tribunal under the Act.The Government constituted such a Tribunal and the three petitioners in the petition were appointed members of the Tribunal by Ext.P -1 Government Order dated 21st July 1969,with the 3rd petitioner as its Chairman. Section 109 of the Act empowers the Government to issue rules generally to carry out the purposes of the Act and accordingly rules have been framed.Rule 95 deals with the appointment and conditions of service of the Chairman and other members of the Tribunal.According to rule 95(3 )(a ),the Chairman and members of the Tribunal shah hold office ordinarily for a period of five years and any vacancy arising by reason of termination or resignation or any other causes shall be filled up by the Government for the remaining period.While the petitioners were functioning as members of the Tribunal,the Kerala Co -operative Societies Amend­ment Ordinance 19 of 1971 was passed amending the principal Act by substituting a new section 81 in place of the original section 81.By reason of the amendment,the Tribunal was to be constituted with a single member and further a person was not to be qualified for appointment as a member of the Tribunal unless 'he is or has been 'holding the post of a District Judge in the State.Under the section prior to its amendment any Advocate could be appointed as a member of the Tribunal.

(2.) CONSEQUENT upon the amendment of section 81 the petitioners could not continue in office as members of the Tribunal and apprehending that they would be removed from such office,they have moved this Court challenging the validity of Ordinance No.19 of 1971 and particularly clause 5 thereof which related to the substitution of new section 81 and also the incorporation of section 81 -A relating to pending proceedings.They also seek appro­priate orders from this Court to permit them to continue for the full term of five years.

(3.) THE petitioners also contend that since a term of five years is provided in the rules in force and there is nothing in the Ordinance which curtails that period,they should have been allowed to continue in office for a period of five years.There is also a plea of mala fides on the part of the Minister in charge of Co -operation,Sri N.K.Balakrishnan.According to the petitioners,the consideration which have led to the passing of the Ordi­nance was corrupt motive on the part of Sri N.K.Bala­krishnan to whose pressure the other Ministers in the Council of Ministers must have submitted because of political exigencies and also because of the coalition nature of the Government.Ext.P -14 is attacked as a colourable piece of legislation.