SHER CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but interesting point of law raised in this petition relates to the interpretation of S.26A of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). The part of the section relevant to the controversy raised reads as follows :-

(2.) The parties are not at variance in accepting that the co-option of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 has taken place as per the written direction of the Registrar D/- March 8, 1984, copy of which is Annexure P. 2 to the petition. The substance of this direction meant for all the Co-operative Societies in the State is that at least two persons be co-opted in accordance with the provisions of S.26A of the Act from amongst the categories of persons specified in sub-s.(2) of this section. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find that the petitioner must succeed.

(3.) In the light of sub-sec.(1) of S.26A it cannot possibly be disputed that the Registrar is competent to direct the Committee of a Cooperative Society or any class of Co-operative Societies to co-opt in the prescribed manner for serving on the Committee such number of members, not exceeding two, as may be specified in his direction, It is again beyond dispute in the light of the opening words of sub-s.(2) of this section that such co-options have to be made from amongst members of the Co-operative Society to the Committee of which the co-option has to be made. The use of the word 'the' before Co-operative Society clearly denotes a particular Society. The only other requirement being that such member or members to be co-opted must belong to the category of persons specified in this sub-sec., i.e., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or from amongst members who as landowner or tenant or as both do not hold more than the prescribed area of agricultural land and fulfil the other prescribed conditions. The question then is. are respondents Nos. 5 and 6 who have been co-opted to the Committee of the Bank, members of the Bank? Concededly they are not. It is the accepted position in the light of the provisions of sub-s.(1) of S.15A that no Central Society like the Bank can have or has any individual members. This sub-section injuncts the Central Society from having an individual as its member. It reads thus : -