w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v/s Ayukt / Nibandhak, Dugdh Sahakari Samitiyan Dugdhshala Vikas, U.F., Lucknow

    C.M.W.P Appeal No. 28351 of 2001

    Decided On, 09 August 2001

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR NARAIN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.M. SAHAI

    For the Appearing Parties: G.D. Mishra, Sudhakar Pandey, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1) SUDHIR Naraln, J. The petitioners have sought to quash the amendment made in bye-laws of the society known as Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. , petitioner No. 1 (in short the society), by an order passed by the Registrar, Milk co-operative Society, U. P. Lucknow on 19. 4. 2001.


(2) THE society is a registered society under the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and Ru

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

es framed thereunder. It has its own bye-laws. The office bearers of the managing committee of the society are to be elected in accordance with the bye-laws on the society. The last election of the office bearers of the society was held in the year 1998 and the term is expiring on 10. 8. 2001. The Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdh Sahkari samitiyan Dugdhshala Vikas Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, respondent No. 1, has issued notification dated 19. 4. 2001 by which amendments have been made in the bye-laws of the society. He has approved the impugned bye-law 65 of the society whereby a member of the society shall have no right to vote if he has not supplied milk for 180 days in the preceding co-operative year and minimum 500 liters of milk. The unamended bye law provided that a member shall have no right to vote if he has not supplied milk for 180 days in the preceding co-operative year but the amended bye-law added further condition that such member must have supplied minimum 500 litres of milk. (3) WE have heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri G. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. (4) THE core question is whether the amendment can be made with retrospective effect. The members are to participate in the election after expiry of term of the present committee of management. The unamended bye-law No. 65 did not provide that a member should have supplied 500 litres of milk in a co-operative year. The only condition was that such member should have supplied milk for 180 days. If the amendment is given retrospective effect it will deprive the members to cast then votes in the ensuing election of the members and office bearers of the committee of management. (5) THE settled principle of law is that amendment should not be taken as retrospective unless the statute, affecting substantive rights, provides that it is to be given effect retrospectively. Secondly, a delegated legislation cannot be made retrospectively unless the statute itself confers power on the authority framing delegated legislation. Section 14 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1965 confers power to make amendment in the bye-law which reads as under :"14. Power to direct amendments in bye-laws. (1) When the registrar is of the opinion, whether on the representation of a member of a Co-operative Society, or otherwise, that an amendment in the bye-laws of a co-operative society is necessary or desirable in the interests of such society or in public interest, he may, under such circumstances as may be prescribed, by order in writing issued to the society by registered post, require the society to make the amendment within such time as he may specify In the order. (2) If the society fails to make the amendment within the time specified, the Registrar may, after giving the society an opportunity of being heard, register such amendment and issue to the society by registered post a copy of the amendment certified by him as a copy and such copy shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly made and such copy registered. "(6) THE Registrar has not been given any power to make any amendment in the bye-laws giving effect to such bye-laws retrospectively. The bye-law No. 65 referred to above also does not provide that it shall be given retrospective effect. (7) IN view of the above the writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the clarification that the amendments of the bye-laws made by respondent No. 1 by notification dated 19. 4. 2001 is not retrospective. Petition allowed.
OR
Also