Civil Appeal Nos 206  2861  250  320  1607  3548  379  769 1280 of  979 and 1476 1483 Of 1985
From the Judgments and Orders dated 10179  28979  P 16179  264 79  27979  15179  817919479  of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP Nos
432778  343079  471378  493778  134579  321779  512178  2478  519518  434078  4613178  4793178  41J378  438678  454518  458518 and 125779
G MK Ranamurthi  RC Pathak  Arvind Kumar  Mrs Laxmi Arvind  Miss K V Lalitha  Arun Madan  Sarwa Mitter  Manoj Swarup and Miss Lalita Kohli  for the appearing Appellants
MS Gujral  SK Bagga  Swaraj Kaushal  RS Sodhi and MP Jha  for the appearing Respondents
584 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY  J
The opinion of the High Courts appears to be unanimous on the question of the validity of the relevant provisions of the Cooperative Societies Acts in force in their respective States providing for the compulsory amalgamation of Cooperative Societies
The Full Benches of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh  Karnataka  Punjab and Haryana and a Division Bench of the Patna High Court 1 have upheld the validity of such provisions
But litigants  particularly those who are in a position to command funds arc rarely deterred by such unanimity of judicial opinion
11 So  several Co operative Societies of Punjab have chosen to prefer appeals to this Court questioning the vires of sec 13 8 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act which provides for the compulsory amalgamation of cooperative societies if it is necessary in the interests of the cooperative societies
The questions raised are simple and straight and are capable of but single  straight forward answers
Unfortunately a large number of appeals have piled up in this court on these questions and we are told that a large number of writ petitions said to involve these or similar questions are pending in the various High Courts in the country awaiting the decision of this Court
We earnestly hope that this decision will put an end to this branch of the litigation and will serve to push forward the cooperative movement We think it is needless to refer to the nature and history of the cooperative movement except to say that the promotion of the cooperative movement is one of the Directive principles of State Policy see Art43 of the Constitution As usual in these and such cases  the counter affidavits  where they have been filed  leave much to be desired and are least helpful
But  as pointed out by us often enough  the vires of legislation is not to be decided on the basis of affidavits of underlings of the executive who can hardly be described as authorised to speak for the legislature
But even from the  meagre material available to us from the record  it is 1
AIR 1978 AP 121 FB AIR 1978 KARNATAKA 148 FB 1976 Punjab Law Journal 302 FB AIR 1968 PATNA 211 There is also an excellent discussion by Vaidya  J in ILR 585 Obvious that the provisions relating to amalgamation of Cooperative Societies in different State  enactments were introduced pursuant to a policy decision arrived at an All India Conference
This is evident from the circumstance that these provisions were enacted by the various State legislatures roughly at about the same time
A reference to the policy decision at an All India Conference may be found in the Full Bench Judgments of the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka High Courts
It is unnecessary to say more on this aspect of the case
The Punjab Co operative Societies Act  196t which replaced the earlier Act was enacted  so it is stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons  In pursuance of the policy of the Government of India to simplify co operative law and procedure in order to remove all bottlenecks in the way of development of co operative movement in the country
 It is further stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons
The important provisions  such as relating to change of liability  amalgamation of societies  splitting up of societies  settlement of disputes and winding up of societies  etc were found to be of a dilatory and complicated nature  and  therefore  creating problems in the day to day working of the co operative societies
Special care has  therefore  been taken
to cut out all unnecessary delays particularly in registration of societies and the provisions to this effect have been simplified
Another approach influencing a change is to make the Co operative Law comprehensive
Moreover consistent with our national policy to promote the organisation and growth of the co operative Societies in the various fields of economic activity  more difficult and complicated forms of co operative societies are to spring up as compared to Co operative Credit Societies  Section 2c defines co operative society as meaning a Society registered or deemed to be registered under this Act
 Chapter II secs 3 to 14 deals with registration of co operative societies
In particular sec
8 prescribes the conditions pre requisite to registration and authorises the Registrar to register a society and its Bye laws if he is satisfied that the conditions are fulfilled  Section 13 provides for the amalgamation  transfer of assets and 586 liabilities and division of co operative societies
While sec
132 provides for voluntary amalgamation  Sec 13 8 provides for compulsory amalgamation if the Registrar is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the co operative societies
139 a requires the Registrar to send a copy of the proposed order to the societies concerned and the creditors and sec
13 9 b requires the Registrar to consider the objections received from the societies concerned or from any member or creditor of such societies
Section 13 11 gives to the member or creditor Who has objected to the proposed order under sub sec
9 the option of withdrawing his share  deposits or loans as the case may be on an application to be made to the society to which his share  deposits or loans stand allocated by virtue of the order under sub sec
8 within a period of 30 days from the date of such order
It is the vires of these provisions  that is in question in these appeals and it will be useful to extract at this juncture  sub sections 8  9  10 and 11 of sec 13 of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act
They are as a follows 131 2      3  4     5      6 7      8 Where the Registrar is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of the co operative society or co operative societies that i any co operative society be divided to form two or more co operative societies or ii one or more co operative societies be amalgamated with any other co operative society or 587 iii two or more co operative societies be amalgamated to form a new co operative society  then  notwithstanding anything herein before contained  the Registrar may  after consulting the financing institution  if any  provide for a the division of that co operative society into two or n more co operative societies or b the amalgamation of the society or societies i With any other co operative society  or ii to form a new co operative society  with such constitution including representation on the committee  property rights  interests  liabilities  duties and obligations  as may be specified in the order
9 No order shall be made under sub section 8  unless a a copy of the proposed order has been sent under certificate of posting to the society or societies concerned and the creditors b the Registrar has considered the objections received from the society or societies concerned or from any member or creditor of such society or societies within such period  being not less than fifteen days from the date of posting of the proposed order  as may be specified by the Registrar in this behalf in the pro posed order
10 the Registrar may  after considering the objections referred to in sub section 9  make such modification in the proposed order as he may deem fit and the order may contain such incidental  consequential and supplemental provisions as the Registrar may deem necessary to give effect to the same
11 A member or creditor who had objected to the pro posed order under sub section 9 shall have the option 588 of withdrawing his share  deposits or loans as the case may be  on an application which shall be made to the society to which his share  deposit or loan stands allocated by virtue of the order under sub section8  within a period of thirty days of the date of such order 12    Chapter V of the Act deals with privileges of Cooperative Societies and in particular sec
30 states The registration of a co operative society shall render it a body corporate by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal  and with power to hold property  enter into contract  institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purposes for which it is constituted
 The foremost submission of Shri MK Ramamurthi  learned counsel for the petitioners was that any law providing for the amalgamation of co operative societies directly contravenes article 19 1 c which guarantees to all citizens the right to form associations or unions
According to Shri Ramamurthi  the right of a citizen to form a society or to be a member of a certain cooperative society is interfered with if the society of which he has become a member is amalgamated with another society consisting of members with whom he may not be associated
Article 31A I c furnishes a complete answer to this submission
It provides that no law providing for the amalgamation of two or more corporations either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of any of the corporations shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Art l l or article 19
Shri Ramamurthi attempted to cross the stile by arguing that co operative societies were not corporations within the meaning of that expression in article 31 A I c
According to him  the Constitution discloses a scheme which separates co operative societies from Corporations  and never the twain shall meet 
To substantiate his submission  he invited our attention to Entries 43 and 42 of List I and Entry 32 of list II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
He also read 589 Out to us the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Joint Select Committee s report relating to the Constitution Fourth Amendment Act  195S by which clause c of Art31 A1 was introduced
His submission was that the legislative intent was merely to render legislation providing for amalgamation of companies and statutory corporations alone immune to challenge on the ground of conflict with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 19
According to him the protection afforded by article 31 Alc was not available and was never intended to be made available to co operative societies  since the expression corporations  did not comprehend co operative societies in its expanse
We are unable to find any justification for giving such a limited or narrow interpretation to the expression corporations  occurring in article 31 AI c
On the other hand  we think that the very requirement of public interest or proper management of the corporation mentioned in article 31 Al c requires the expression to be given a broad interpretation since there can be no higher interest than the public interest
We do not however desire to quibble with rules of construction since we propose to examine what a corporation  means and comprehends ordinarily and in the scheme of the Constitution
What is a corporation  In Halsbury s Laws of England  4th Edition  Volume 9  Paragraph 1201  it is said  A corporation may be defined as a body of persons in the case of a corporation aggregate or in office in the case of a corporation sole which is recognised by the law as having a personality which is distinct from the separate personalities of the members of the body or the personality of the individual holder for the time being of the office in question
 A corporation aggregate has been defined in paragraph 1204 as  A corporation of individuals united into one body under a special domination having perpetual succession under an artificial form  and vested by the policy of law with the capacity of acting in several respects as an individual  particularly of taking and granting property  of contracting 590 obligations and of suing and being sued  of enjoying privileges and immunities in common and of exercising a variety of political rights  more or less extensive  according to the design of its institution  or the powers conferred upon it  either at the time of its creation or at any subsequent period of its existence This court in the Board of Trustees  Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College  Delhi vs the State of Delhi1 was required to answer the question whether the Board of trustees which was originally registered under the Societies Registration Act  1860 and a new Board of trustees which was incorporated by an Act of the legislature called the Tibbia College Act  1952 by which the old Board was dissolved and a new Board constituted were corporations
The court held that the old Board was not but the new Board was
Posing the question what is a corporation  the court answered it with the statements contained in Halsbury s Laws of England already extracted by us and added  A corporation aggregate has therefore only one capacity  namely  its corporate capacity
A corporation aggregate may be a trading corporation or a non trading corporation
The usual examples of a trading corporation are 1 character companies  2 companies incorporated by special acts of Parliament  3 companies registered under the Companies Act  etc
Non trading corporations are illustrated by 1 municipal corporations  2 district boards  3 benevolent institutions  4 universities etc
An essential element in the legal conception of a corporation is that its identity is continuous  that is  that the original member or members and his or their successors are one
In law the individual corporators  or members  of which it is composed are something wholly different from the corporation itself for a corporation is a legal person just as much as an individual
Thus  it has been held that a name is essential to a corporation  that a corporation aggregate can  as a general rule  only act or express its will by deed under its common seal that at the present day in England a corporation is created by one or other of two methods  1 1962 SUPPL
SCR 156 591 namely  by Royal Charter of incorporation from the Crown or by the authority of Parliament that is to say  by or by virtue of statute
There is authority of long standing for saying that the essence of a corporation consists in 1 lawful authority of incorporation  2 the persons to be incorporated  3 a name by which the persons are incorporated  4 a place and 5 words sufficient in law to show incorporation
No particular words are necessary for the creation of a corporation  any expression showing an intention to incorporate will be sufficient
 The court then noticed the various provisions of the Societies Registration Act  1860 which according to them contained no sufficient words to indicate an intention to incorporate but on the contrary contained provisions showing that there was an absence of such intention
Therefore  they observed  We have  therefore  come to the conclusion that the provisions aforesaid do not establish the main essential characteristic of a corporation aggregate  namely  that of an intention to incorporate the society
 Considering next the question whether the new Board was a corporation  the court had no difficulty in answering the question with reference to sub section 2 of section 3 which stated that the Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal and shall by the said name sue and be sued
The court observed  Subsection 2 of sec
3 says in express terms that the new Board constituted under the impugned Act is given a corporate status in other words  the new Board is a corporation in the full sense of the term
 We have already extracted sec
30 of the Punjab Act which confers on every registered co operative society the status of a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal  with power to hold property  enter into contracts  institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted
There cannot  therefore  be 592 the slightest doubt that a co operative society is a corporation as commonly understood
Does the scheme of the Constitution make any difference  We apprehend not
Entry 43 of List I of the Seventh Schedule is as follows 43
Incorporation  regulation and winding up of trading corporations  including banking  insurance and financial corporations but not including co operative societies
 Entry 44 of the same list is as follows 44
Incorporation  regulation and winding up of corporations  whether trading or not  with objects not confined to one State  but not including universities
Entry 32 of List II is as follows 32
Incorporation  regulation and winding up of corporations  other than those specified in List I and universities incorporated trading  literature  scientific  religious and other societies and associations co operative societies  According to Mr Ramamurthi the express exclusion of co operative societies in Entry 43 of List  and the express inclusion of co operative societies in Entry 32 of List II separately and apart from but along with corporations other than those specified in list I and universities  clearly indicated that the constitutional scheme was designed to treat co operative societies as institutions distinct from corporations
On the other hand one would think that the very mention of co operative societies both in Entry 43 of List I and Entry 32 of List II along with other corporations give an indication that the Constitution makers were of the view that co operative societies were of the same genus as other corporations and all were corporations
In fact the very express exclusion of co operative societies from Entry 43 of List I is indicative of the view that but for such exclusion  co operative societies would be comprehended within the meaning of expression corporations
The statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution 4th amendment Act and the report of the Joint Select Committee relating thereto do not carry Mr Ramamurthi s argument any 593 further
The statement of Objects and Reasons says  in relation to article 31 A 1 c  The reforms in company law now under contemplation like the progressive elimination of the managing agency system  provision for the compulsory amalgamation of two or more companies in the national interest  the transfer of an undertaking from one company to another  etc  require to be placed above challenge
 The report of the Joint Select Committee  is so far as it is relevant  says  In sub clauses c and d  the word corporations has been substituted for the word companies in order to cover statutory corporations as well as companies
 According to Mr Ramamurthi  the statement of Objects and Reasons and the report of the joint Select Committee show that initially it was proposed to give protection to legislation pertaining to amalgamation of companies only but later it was thought fit to extend the protection to statutory corporations also and therefore the expression corporations was substituted in the Act in the place of the expression companies which had been mentioned in the Bill
There is no substance in this submission
It was obviously thought by the Parliament that the protection should not be confirmed to companies only but should extend to all corporations which would naturally include Statutory Corporations
The more generic expression corporations was used so that all companies  statutory corporations and the like may be brought in
There is no indication that notwithstanding the use of the generic expression corporations  the expression was intended to exclude corporations other than companies and statutory corporations Parliament apparently chose the broader expression not with a view to limit the protection of the legislation relating to amalgamation to any class of corporations but with a view to protect legislation pertaining to amalgamation of all classes of corporations
The answer to the principal question raised by Shri Ramamurthi appears to us to be so plain as to merit  no further discus 594 sion
We must however notice here Damyanti Naranga vs Union of India on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the basis that article 31 A 1 c did not afford any protection to section 138  9 etc
That case has no application whatever to the situation before us
It was a case where an unregistered society was by statute converted into a registered society which bore no resemblance whatever to the original society
New members could be admitted in large numbers so as to reduce the original members to an insignificant minority
The composition of the society itself was transformed by the Act and the voluntary nature of the association of the members who formed the original society was totally destroyed
The Act was  therefore  struck down by the court as contravening the fundamental right guaranteed by article l91f
In the cases before us we are concerned with co operative societies which from the inception are governed by statute
They are created by statute  there are controlled by statute and so  there can be no objection to statutory interference with their composition on the ground of contravention of the individual right of freedom of association
The second submission of the learned counsel was that s138 of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act provided for amalgamation of Co operative Societies if the Registrar was satisfied that it was necessary to do so in the interest of the Co operative Societies whereas the Constitutional protection was available only if the legislation was in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of any of the corporations
According to the learned counsel the protection of article 31 A 1 c was  therefore  not available to section 13 8 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act as the interest of a Cooperative Society may not necessarily be in the public interest or for the proper management of the society
This submission is no more than a play with words
The very philosophy and concept of the Cooperative movement is impregnated with the public interest and the amalgamation of Co operative Societies when such amalgamation is in the interest of the Co operative Societies is certainly in the public interest or can only be to secure the proper management of the societies
The argument of the learned counsel is an attempt at hair splitting and is rejected
1  595 The next submission of the learned counsel was that section 13 A 8  9 and 10 did not make express provision for the issue of notice to the members of the concerned Co operative Societies and were  therefore  violative of the principles of natural justice
He argued that in the absence of any provision  the rules of natural justice may be read into the provisions and notice to the members of the affected societies was imperative
Otherwise  he argued  13 members of one society would be formed against their will and without being heard to associate themselves with members of another society
We have no hesitation in rejecting this submission also
Once a person becomes a member of a co operative society  he loses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the by laws
He must act and speak through the society or rather  the society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the society as a body  So if the statute which authorises compulsory amalgamation of cooperative societies provides for notice to the societies concerned  the requirement of natural justice is fully satisfied
The notice to the society will be deemed as notice to all its member
That is why section 13 9 a Provides for the issue of notice to the societies and not to individual members
Section 139b  however  provides the members also with an opportunity to be heard if they desire to be heard
Notice to individual members of a cooperative society  in our opinion  is opposed to the very status of a cooperative society as a body corporate and is  therefore  unnecessary
We do not consider it necessary to  further elaborate the matter except to point out that a member who objects to the proposed amalgamation within the prescribed time is given  by section 3111  the option to walk out  as it were  by withdrawing his share  deposits or loans as the case may be
Another submission of the learned counsel was that the notification authorising the Assistant
Registrar of Co operative Societies to exercise all the powers of Registrar under the Act could enable the Assistant Registrar to perform only such functions as the Registrar was authorised to perform under the Act as on the date of the notification
The Assistant Registrar would not be entitled to exercise the powers entrusted to the Registrar 596 by amendment of the Act subsequent to the date of the notification unless a fresh notification was issued
We do not think that a fresh notification would be necessary where the Assistant Registrar even initially was authorised generally to perform all the functions of a Registrar
A fresh notification would probably be necessary where the Assistant Registrar was authorised to perform certain specified functions only of the Registrar
That is not claimed to be the situation here
The final submission of Shri Ramamurthi was that several other questions were raised in the writ petition before the High Court but they were not considered
We attach no significance to this submission
It is not unusual for parties and counsel to raise innumerable grounds in the petitions and memoranda of appeal etc  but  later  confine themselves  in the course of argument to a few only of those grounds  obviously because the rest of the grounds are considered even by them to be untenable
No party or counsel is thereafter entitled to make a grievance that the grounds not argued were not considered
If indeed any ground which was argued was not considered it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification
The time of the superior courts is not to be wasted in inquiring into the question whether  a certain ground to which no reference is found in the judgment of the subordinate court was argued before that court or not  Shri Arvind Kumar  learned counsel for one of the appellants very airily made a submission that article 31 A 1 c introduced by the Constitution 64th amendment Act and section 138 of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act offended the Basic Structure of the Constitution as they affected the dignity of the human being and were therefore void
We find overselves unable to appreciate how the dignity of a human being can even remotely be said to be affected by the amalgamation of a cooperative society of which an individual is a member with another cooperative society
We expect counsel appearing in this court  particularly when they appear before the Constitution Bench  to avoid advancing such totally unsustainable propositions  The time of 597 this court is public time and as the mountainous arrears show the time is becoming increasingly dear and precious
We can only appeal to counsel to carefully examine with a greater sense of responsibility the submission which they propose to make before actually advancing them in court
All the appeals are dismissed with costs which we quantify each Rs 2500 in each appeal
SR Appeals  Petitions dismissed


Summary:
Pursuant to a policy decision arrived at an All India Conference on Co operative Societies various State Legislatures roughly at about the same lime introduced enactments providing for amalgamation of co operative societies
The vires of the provisions contained in sub sections 8 to 11 of section 13 of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act 1961 providing for compulsory amalgamation of cooperative societies if it is necessary in the interests cooperative societies is challenged in these appeals by special leave aud other special leave petitions
Dismissing the appeals and petitions the Cource  HELD 1
The vires of legislation is not to be decided on the basis of affidavits of underlings of the executive who can hardly be described as authorised to speak for the legislature
As usual in these and such cases 581 the Counter affidavits  where they have been filed  leave much to be desired and arc least helpful to the Court
584F G 585A A 21 The law providing for amalgamation of co operative societies  in view of the constitutional bar contained in Article 31 A 1 c cannot be struck down as violative of the provisions of Article 19 1 c of the Constitution  the right of a citizen to form a society or to be a member of a certain cooperative society is not interfered with if the society of which he has become a member is amalgamated with another society consisting of members with whom he may not be willing to be associated 588D G In the cases here  the cooperative societies are governed by statute from their inception
They are created by statute  they are controlled by statute and so there can be no objection to statutory interference with their composition on the ground of contravention of the individual right of freedom of association
j 594C D Damyanti Naranga vs Union of India  1971 3 SCR 840  explained and distinguished
22 The expression Corporations occurring in Article 31 A I c of the Constitution cannot be given such a limited or narrow interpretations so as not to comprehend cooperative societies in its expanse
011 the other hand  the very requirement of the Corporation mentioned in Article 31 A I c requires the expression to be given a broad interpretation since there can been higher interest than the public interest589C D 23 Section 30 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act  1961 confers every registered co operative society the status of a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal  with power to hold property enter into contracts  institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary the purposes for which it is constituted Therefore  co operative society is a corporation as commonly understood 591G H  592A Board of Trustees  Ayurvedic  and Unani Tibia College  Delhi vs The State of Delhi  1962 Suppl
1 SCR 156 applied
24 The scheme of the Constitution as enjoined in Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule an Entry 32 of List 11 does not make any difference either
The mention of co operative societies both in Entry 43 of List I and Entry 32 of List II along with other corporations give an indication that the Constitution makers were of the view that co operative societies were of the same genus as other corporations and all were corporations
In fact the very express exclusion of co operative societies from Entry 43 of List I is indicative of the view that but for such exclusion  co operative societies would be comprehended within the expression corporations592A  592F G 25 The statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution 4th 582 amendment Act and the report of the Joint Select Committee relating thereto  do now show that initially it was proposed to give protection to legislation pertaining to amalgamation of companies only but later it was thought fit to extend the protection to statutory corporations also and therefore  the expression corporations was substituted in the Act in the place of the expression companies  which had been mentioned in the Bill
It was obviously thought by the Parliament that the protection should not be confined to companies only but should extend to all corporations which would naturally include Statutory Corporations
The more generic expression corporation was used so that all companies statutory corporations and the like may be brought in
There is no indication that notwithstanding the use of the generic expression corporations  the expression was intended to exclude corporations other than companies and statutory corporations
Parliament apparently chose the broader expression not with a view to limit the protection of the legislation relating to amalgamation to any class of corporations but with a view to protect legislation pertaining to amalgamation of all classes of corporations
592H  593D G 26 The very philosophy and concept of the cooperative movement is impregnated with the public interest and the amalgamation of co operative societies when such amalgamation is in the interest of the co operative societies is certainly in the public interest or can only be to secure the proper management of the societies
Therefore  it cannot be said that the protection of Art  31 Al c was not available to section 13 8 of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act  as the interest of a co operative society may not necessarily be in the public interest or for the proper management of the society
594D G 27 Notice to individual members of a co operative society  is opposed to the very status of a cooperative society as a body corporate and is  therefore  unnecessary
Once a person becomes a member of a co operative society he loses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the bye laws He must act and speak through the society or rather  the society alone can act and speak for qua rights or duties of the society as a body
So if the statute which authorises compulsory amalgamation of cooperative societies provides for notice to the societies concerned  the requirement of natural justice is fully satisfied
The notice to the society will be deemed as notice to all its members
That is why section 13 9 a provides for the issue of notice to the societies and not to individual members
Section 13 9 b  however  provides the members also with an opportunity to be heard if they desire to be heard Further a member who objects to the proposed amalgamation within the prescribed time is given  by section 31 11 the option  to walk out  as it were  by withdrawing his share  deposits or loans as the case may be
595A  C A 28 A fresh notification would not be necessary where the Assistant Registrar even initially was authorised generally to perform all the functions of a Registrar
A fresh notification would probably be necessary where the Assistant Registrar was authorised to perform certain specified functions only of the Registrar
That is not claimed to be the situation here
596A B 583 29 It cannot be said that the dignity of a human being is even remotedly affected by the amalgamation of a co operative society of which an individual is member with another co operative society
Therefore the contention that both Article 31 Alc of the Constitution and section 138 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act  offended the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore were void is misplaced
OBSERVATION The Counsel appearing in the Supreme Court  particularly  when they appear before the Constitution Bench must avoid advancing totally unsustainable propositions
The time of the Supreme Court is public time and as the mountainous arrears show that time is becoming increasingly dear and precious
The counsel must carefully examine with a greater sense of responsibility the submissions which they propose to make before actually advancing them in the Court
596G H 593A B 3
It is not unusual for parties and counsel to raise innumerable grounds in the petitions and memoranda of appeal etc
but  later  confine themselves  in the course of argument to a few only of those grounds  obviously because the rest of the grounds are considered even by them to be untenable
No party or counsel is thereafter entitled to make a grievance that the grounds not argued were not considered
If indeed any ground which was argued was not considered it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the Court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification
The time of the superior Courts is not to be wasted in inquiring into the question whether a certain ground to Which no reference is found in the judgment of the subordinate court was argued before that court or not 596D E