At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI
For the Petitioners: Rahul Kamwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: ------------
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"By issuing an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus struck down the Sub-Section 7Aof Section 28of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, inserted vide The Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act 2016; and to declare the same as ultra vires and unconstitutional."
2. The petitioner has challenged in this petition, the constitutional validity of Section 28(7-A) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Amendment Act, 2016 which reads as under:
Section 28: Disqualification of membership etc. of committee:
7-A No Person shall be eligible for election as a member of a committee, if he has been elected or co-opted to be a member of the committee of the same society in continuation for two times, unless a period of five years from the date of expiry of his second term as the member of such committee has elapsed:
Provided that a member of a committee once elected or co-opted to the committee shall be deemed to have completed his full term for the purpose of this sub-section, even if he was not elected or co-opted for a full term of five years or has not completed his term of office for any reason whatsoever it may be.
3. The main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that though notification is not published but they have issued directions and they are trying to form the society to implement the provisions. He contended that conjoined reading with Section 5 which has been reproduced on page 11 with Section 27 and constitutional provisions of Article 29 at page 7 and read with 293 z(i) is going contrary to the statute and the constitutional provisions. He contended that if Section 27 read closely, the maximum member is 20 and minimum member is 12, therefore, if there is a restriction on the membership 15, then the provisions of law is not feasible.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. It will not be out of place to mention here that the basic object of the constitutional amendment in the Act is to have change in the society and monopoly should be removed from individuals who are controlling the cooperative society while deciding the statutory constitutional validity provisions followed, the Court has to consider the object of the amendment merely because it might be harsh to one of the individuals of the society, it cannot be held to be unconstitutional only on the ground of inconvenient to an individual society or individual ultimately, the Court has to examine the very object for which the constitutional amendment is brought into force. The purpose is to have change in the society and the young generation or the persons with different parties must act incharge of a cooperative society which is ultimate object of the cooperative society. The purpose of co-operative society was frustrated by having monopoly by individuals by restricting membership. In our view, the very object of the co-operative movement will be strangled if the statutory provisions are struck down. Therefore, we see no infirmity in the statutory provisions either contra
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ry to constitutional provisions. The petition is devoid of merit. 6. In our view, if the notification is not issued, the petitioner ought not to have filed this petition. Another aspect of the matter is after notification, this society cannot file a writ petition. 7. The petition stands dismissed. Petition Dismissed.