RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is last of the breed of writ petitions challenging the vires of the Haryana Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1987 (Act No. 7 of 1988), (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). Vide this amendment it was inter alia provided that the maximum tenure of a Managing Committee elected in terms of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, would be three years and with the expiry of that term, the State Government is entitled to appoint an Administrator to run the affairs of the Society and he can be so appointed for a period of four years, but not more than a year at a time. Since the term of the petitioners who had been elected as members of the Board of Directors of the Society on May 2, 1984, had expired, the State Government appointed an Administrator replacing the petitioners on January 27, 1988. Vide our judgment dated November 30, 1988, in-the connected 26 writ petitions, we have negatived the above noted challenge to the vires of the Amending Apt. This petition, however, survived on account of the additional plea raised on behalf of the petitioners which is dealt with hereunder.

(2.) The petitioners claim that their Society registered as "The Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Panipat", is a Multi-State Co-operative Society in terms of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short, the 1984 Act) and, therefore, neither the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, as amended by the Amending Act is applicable to their case nor the State Government could appoint an Administrator to run the affairs of the Society as has been done vide order dated January 27, 1988; rather in terms of sub-section (3) of S.35 of the 1984 Act, they were to continue to hold office "till their successors are elected or nominated" under the Act or the rules or the bye-laws and assumed charge of their office. This stand is founded on alternative pleas in the following manner:-

(3.) The respondent authorities while seriously controverting the above noted factual stand of the petitioners with the plea that neither the petitioners' Society was ever registered or functioned under the 1984 Act nor under the preceding legislation, i.e., the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, also raised the plea - apparently out of sheer panic - that the 1984 Act itself is ultra vires the Constitution of India, being beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. In nutshell, their case is that this piece of legislation is not covered by entries 43 and 44 or any other entry in List I of Schedule 7 to the Constitution.