ATAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come up with following prayers,

(2.) K.N. Misra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended as follows The U.P. Co-operative Societies Act was enacted keeping in view the democratisation and deofficialisation as the objective of the co-operative movement. The co-operative movement is based on co-operation. which is the back bone of economic activities and social progress of the welfare policies. It has been repeatedly emphasised that co-operation is the best method for transforming into the social reality. The ideals are enshrined in our Constitution and implied in the socialistic pattern of the Society. Co-operative is essentially a voluntarily association of persons for their common economic interest formed on the basis of equality of opportunity. One of the most important principle of Co-operative Societies is their Administration to be carried on democratically. It is the object of the co-operative movement to enshrine the democratic principles amongst the members themselves and State should not by an Act or Amendment curtail the rights of a member of the Co-operative Society. The elected bodies viz.. Parliament. Assembly, Zila Panchayat. Nagar Panchayat Kshetra Panchayat and Gaon Sabha all are constituted for a period of 5 years and this will be a discrimination to limit the period of elected body of Co-operative Society for 3 years. In Kehsava N and Bharti case it has been held that a constitutional amendment can not destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. In Atma Prakash v. State of Haryana. AIR 1986 SC 859. it was held that preamble to the Constitution is the guiding light. Act No. 1 of 1997 has been passed without removing the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 29 and adding sub-sections 5-A and 5-B and sub-sections (3) and (4) had remained untouched and without complying with the conditions mentioned therein. The action of the State will be ultra vires and against the basic principle of the Co-operative Society. Hence this writ petition is fit to be allowed. Our decisions dated 16.7.1998 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22045 of 1998 and of today in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23329 of 1998 does not consider his submissions and thus require reconsideration. The Chief Minister is acting mala fide which is apparent from the report of the newspapers."

(3.) Mr. H.R Misra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, in reply contended as follows : (i) He is reiterating the submissions already made before us in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 22405 of 1998 Dal Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and another and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23329 of 1998, Arun Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, which have already been accepted and the attack to the vires of the Acts have been repelled by us correctly. (ii) From the various provisions of the Act and the Rules it is clear that the co-operative movement or the preamble for which the Act was enacted has not been touched by the Legislature. It has merely reduced the tenure from 5 years to 3 years. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that all democratic institutions have got a tenure of 5 years is factually incorrect inasmuch as in Gujarat the Co-operative Societies have a tenure of 3 years only which is apparent from perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ganpat Biiai M. Solanki v. District Collector. Varodam. (1997) 9 SCC 612. (iii) The charge of mala fide against the Chief Minister is also some what misplaced. The petitioner has nowhere stated as a fact that any member belonging to the Bhartiya Janta Party has been appointed as an Administrator. In fact in the instant case it was the District Magistrate who was appointed as an Administrator. Reliance on a press report is accordingly misplaced besides in admissible. (iv) In addition to the decisions already cited before us in the aforementioned two cases, Mr. Misra drew our further attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in K. Nagaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 551. G.C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 SC 1655 and Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, (1998} 2 SCC 109. Accordingly this writ petition is fit to be dismissed in limine.