BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR, CO-OP SOCIETIES, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detailed referring order has itself focussed the question involved herein, placed before us for resolving. Minimally, we may notice that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the State of Punjab, to conduct their business in a particular manner, in the wake of change of price of fertilizer fixed by the Government of India under the Fertilizer Control Order 1957, and those directives being the subject matter of challenge, attracted one of its defences that the Registrar was authorised to issue such directives in exercise of his power under Rule 45 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963, which reads as under :-

(2.) In Gobind Ram's case , B.R. Tuli, J., had taken the view that the rule was not consistent with the power vested in the State Government under section 85 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereunder power to frame Rules had been conferred on the State Government. It seems that the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 85 of the Act were not read before the Hon'ble Judge in the right perspective. These may well be reproduced here :-

(3.) Mr. Khoji, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of parliamentary practice, maintained that such rules are seldom placed before the legislature and, possibly in the observance of that practice, the rule perhaps was not placed. On the anvil of M/s Megha Singh and Co. and others v. The State of Punjab and others,1972 AIR(P&H) 297, it was suggested that in any case "non-laying of the rule before the Legislature" would not have invalidated such delegated legislation. That apart, the concluding portion of sub-section (3) of section 85 of the Act makes the intendment of the Legislature clear that the rule becomes effective on its promulgation, and for the interRegulation m till it is placed before the State Legislature, anything previously done under that rule shall be valid in the event of any modification thereto or annulment. So, in either event, even if a rule has not been placed before the house, or has been placed, within and for the statutory period, but no modified or annulled, the rule is valid. However, two different consequences follows. In the first event, it remains delegated legislation and has to meet the test of being not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. But, in the other event, it having received the tacit approval of the Legislature, becomes part and parcel of the Act and gets placed at a higher pedestal. In that cases, even if it is inconsistent with some provision of the Act, the Court applies the rule of harmonious construction and finds a way to resolve the conflict. It finds out which out of the two is the leading provision, which the subordinate one and which must given way to the other. But, as said before, no date has been pleaded from which it could be deduced that the rule was not placed before the Legislature under section 85(3) of the Act.