ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to declare the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Second Amendment) Act, 1998 (U. P. Act 19 of 1998). amending Section 29 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. 1965 (U. P. Act No. 11 of 1966), as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act. 1997 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1997) ultra vires and strike it down and to quash the order dated 9.7.1998 passed by the Deputy Registrar, U. P. Co-operative Societies, Azamgarh Division. Azamgarh. (Opposite Party No. 2) (as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ petition).

(2.) We had upheld the vires of U. P. Act No. 19 of 1998 amending subsection (2) of Section 29 of the U. P. Act No. 1 of 1997 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22045 of 1998 Dal Singh Yadav v. State of U. P. and another, decided on 16.7.1998.

(3.) The Submissions : The main thrust of the submission of Dr. D. S. P. Slngh. learned counsel for the petitioner is "that by Act No. 19 of 1998 the State Legislature has merely amended sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and not the other provisions of the said section, which have to be read together, and if it read together, the Act becomes unworkable". He further submitted that "the State Government has no power to appoint an Administrator to look after the affairs of the Committee of Management". In regard to our Judgment in Dot Singh Vadau (supra), he contended that "the petitioner of that case had failed to demonstrate the vires of the Act whereas "under sub-section (4) Section 29 of the Act. It is the duty of the Secretary of the Co-operative Society to send requisition to the Registrar for the purposes of holding election 4 months earlier than the expiry of the term and under Section 29 (3), it is the duty of the Registrar to hold election 15 days earlier than the expiry of the term of the Co-operative Societies so that the new Committee of Management could replace the outgoing Committee of Management" which was not pressed before us for our consideration. Reducing the period of 5 years to 3 years, the Legislative Intention enshrined in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 29 of the Act stands breached/violated by the Impugned Amendment Act. Further Article 14 negatives even arbitrariness of the Legislative Acts. 3.1 in support of his contention aforementioned. Mr. Singh placed strong reliance on A. P. Krishnaswami v. State of Madras, AIR 1964 SC 151, at page 1519, wherein it was held by the Apex Court as follows : "Sections 5 and 50 are the pivotal provisions of the Act. and if they fall, then we are of opinion that the whole Act must be struck down as unconstitutional. The working of the entire Act depends on Section 5 which provides for celling and Section 50 which provides for compensation. If these sections are unconstitutional, as we hold they aje. the whole Act must fall."