7^^ ..^SIiia^S^^' IN_ THE HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE AT 3ILASPUR,CHHATTISGA WRIT PBTITIOH N0. LL's__^/2oci^ Gurumakti singh Hora S/o Bate shri Aiariksingh Hora, &ge6 about 53 Yrs Chairman, Ch'nattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., T^/o Vikas Sabji, Fal-FuI : " Utpadak isvam Vipanan Sahlcari Sam it i., Distt. Kawa r<3ha VERSUS State of Ghhattisgarh through Secretary, Co-operative Deptt. Secretsriate.Raipur'(Cb.Garh) Registrar, Co-opeEative Societ.les (Chhattisgarh) Deputy Registrar, e'o-.operativ^ Society (Election Officer) / Rajnaadgaon (Chhattisgarh) / Addl.Registrar, Co-operative'r;7 Soci.ety, Krishais Bhawan, ^ Krishak Nagar,Lablian<3i, ; ^ Raipur (ClihattisgsrK) V - Chhattisgarh State Co-opere Marketing Feaeration at-Q^^,. a society registered un<3e^-s,^.S<>i provisions of H.P.Co-ODer^'N'i; Soeieties Act, 'having its office at 880, eivil Lineal Raipur (Ghhattisgarh) '•^ .-^'. w? n. sSpnf 8wo -s"a -/PS '-i :'H03 £SOd -V ^^ A^ -^S^) /r ^ v^-v''. ^ n>A, A ya a H"O •sjsqq.o PIIB qjBSsT^Bqq3 jo azB'i.g •SA BJOH qSaTg tpi'niuruns OOOZ/I.I.C'ON noTq.t't.ed q.TJM ,-.-:--^a^, te^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AI BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN N0.1JJ/2QOO_ Gurumukh ^ingh Hora vs. State o£ Chhattiqgarb & otbers. Shri Alok Aradhe,iearned couhsel tor the petitioner. Shri Ravlndra Sbrivastava., learned Adoocate General, for the State. Shri M.D. Sharaa, learned counsel for respondent no.7. Shri R.S. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondents no.6,8 and 9. ' 0_R,B_E_^ The petitioner Guruaukb Siugh Hora, the Chairman o£ Chhatfisgarh Co-operative Marketirg Federation, has cBalienged the correctness, validity and pFOpriety of the order da-ted 8-12-2000 passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur (respondent no.4). 2. The .facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the pefitioaer is tbe Chairman of Cbliattisgarh Co-operative Harketing Federation. According t.o him, he has assumed the charge of ttie oftice on 30-10-2000, tbere^re, under the provisions of Rule 45-A(2) of H.P. Co-operative Sociefies Rules, 1962 within one year of assumption o£ tlae ctiarge by him, a no con-fidence motion cannot t>e moved against him but as a no confidence motion >een moved against him and as the Additional Registrar 2 - has appointed an O.f^icer to preside tbe meeting, the actior is bad. The petitioner, in fact, was elected as Ghairman of N.P. S-tate Co-operative Marketing Federation on 4-1-97 for a period of five years and unless a mishap occurs he could contiiue upto 3-1-2002. On 1-11-2000, the State o£ Chtiattisgarh came into being and in aocordance with the provisions of M.P. Sahkart Society (Punargathan Aur Nirman) Adtayadesh(4/2000) the said M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation (hereinafter referred to as M.P. Federation) was divided into two and the Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipanan Sangh Maryadit (hereinafter referred to as Chhattisgarh Federation) also came into being. The petitioner as he says assumed charge of Cbhattisgarb . Federation on 30-10-2000. According to him, on 19-10-2000 in tbe United Madhya Pradesb, 19 Directors had moved a no confidence motion against him but after soflie time 11 Directors withdrew tbe said motion. Within twenty days o.E the .formation of the State o£ Chhattisgarh and. creation o£ Chhattisgarh Federation, on 20-11-2000, a no confidence motion under Esc.P/2 was moved. On 27-11-2000,. the petitioner wrote to the Managing Director of Chhattisgarh Federation that as he has assumed charge on 50-10-2000, in accordance with the rule 43-A of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter re-ferred to as the Rules), a no confidence motion could no-t be moved against him within one year. On 8-12-2000, the Additional Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Ghhattisgarh, Raipur issued a notice and directed tbe .. Deputy ' Registrar to preside over the meeting. Ihe petitioner is aggrieved by appointment of the Presiding Officer and the said no confidence motion. Ihe present petition was filed on 12-12-2000 and came up for 3 - hearing on 15-12-2000. One Mohanlal Chandrakar, a Director o£ .Chhattisgarh Federation, made an application for interveution through Shri M.D. Sharma, Advocate. On 15-12-2000 .itsel£, the petitioner filed some documentE The matter was taken up for bearing on 13-1.2-2000 itself -,t »^aJ-uuu'-fca:s ^ and af-ter hearirg the parties^that Vasudev Chandrakar, Kohan Chandrakar, Ayta Ram and Pradeep Kumar Gupta be joined as parties as respondents no.6 to 9, copy o£ the petition and the annexures be also supplied to Shri Sharma.who was representing one ot the interveners. The matter was directed to be listed for hearing on 14-12- 2000. The newly joined respondent no.7 Mohan Chandrakar filed his reply alongwitb. certain documents. At the request of the counsel for the 3tate,the matter was adjourned. On 15-12-2000, this Court admitted the petitioa for hearing and directed is'suance of notice to the respondents no.5,6,8 and 9. After hearing the parties on the question o£ grant of interim relief, this Court directed that the responderrts be restrained trom carrying no corLfidence motion or holdirg a meeting for consideration o£ the said no con.fidence motion. The matter came up for hearirg on 12-2-2001 but was adjourned It again came up for hearing on 14-2-2001 and was directe to be listed for hearing on 2-3-2001. On 3-1-2001, the petitioner made an application £or amendment o.f the petition. This Court bad earlier directed that the proposed aiuendment appears to be as regards interpreta- tion ot certain provisions of law, there-Eore, the same will be taken intoconsideration at the time of final bearing. On 27-2-2001, the petitioner filed a rejoinder to his petition. The respondents no.6,8 and 9 submitted € 4 - their return da*ed 7-2-2001 on 8.2.2001. They contended that thereliance on Rule 43-A was misconceived because the petitioner did not enter the office or assuined the charge on 30-10-2000 but had continued in the said o.ffice. lhe said respondeats also contended that on coming into force o£ M.P. Re-organisation Act,2000 the new State has come into existence and with a view to bifurcate the existing societies tbe said ordinance was promulgated. Tbey also submitted that the elections of Madhya Pradesb Federation were held in the year 1996 y and the petitioner was elected as/Chairman on 4-1-1997,, therefore, on blfurcation o£ the Socie'ty aad coming into existence of tbe new Federatlon it could not be presumed tha-t the petitioner had assumed charge £or the first tiiis Accordirg to tbem, the law nowhere says that on coming into existence of the State o£ Chbatti%arh and b-ifurcation of the existing Federation the Directors and tbe Cbairman would again assume charge. I'hey have also stated tbat the respondents were justified in req.uisitioru.ng the meeting £or consideration of no confidence motion because the Committee had lost faith in the petitioner. It was also submitted by therc that the petitioner had no right to challenge the order of tht Additional Registrar. They also submitted that the petitioner in tacb was continuing as Chairman o£ the Federation by clause 5 of. tbe Ordinance and Section 61 of the M.P. Re-organisation Act. According to these respondents, f*UE Directors out o£ seven bad moved no confidence motion against the petitioner, by no stretch <v»-*^ct-\&»-, of imagination the said wwes«sto could be condgmned as 5 - bad, or contrary to law, or contrary to the provisions o£ bye-laws. .I-he respondents no.1 to 4 bad filed tbeir return on 13-2-2001. These respondents contended -that the existing State Level Co-operative Societies were reconsti-tuted/bt-furcated into M.P. Co-operative Societie and Chhattisgarb Co-operative Societies. •1'hey also submitfed tbat the Ordinance only deals with the sxs reconstitution o£ the State Leyel Co-operative Societies and maintains tbeir status as representatlves or office bearers by fiction but did not alter or modify any provision of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act or the Rules made thereunder. It is also submitted by these respondents that tbe words "till tbe expiry o£ their term under the provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act,1960" aiployed in clause 3(2) of tbe Ordiance were simply used to continue.the Societies a.nd avoid a void. According to them, the intention of the legislation was to avoid election immediately and permit the elected authority or body to continue -for res1 o£ the term. Accordir<g to them, a resolution for no coafidence motion shall not lie in a case where the Chairman assumes cbarge o£ his office £or the -first time and not in a case where because of the fiction he continues in his office. 3'he respondents no.1 to 4 also submit that a tair perusal of sub-clause (2) of clause 5 of the Ordinance would make it ciear that the office bearers of tbe existing society shall confcinue to hold their o.Efice and rc fresh tenure has been given to them\ These respondents have prayed for dismissal 01 the petition. 3. On 29-3-2001, respondent no.1 aloiigwith an application submitted a copy oi' the judgment of -the Higb Court of Madbya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 6240/2000 in the matter of Abdul Rashid vs. State of M.P. & others. On 12-4-2001, the respondents no.1 to 4 made an application for vacation o£ the interim order. On 12-4-2001 itself, the respondent no.7 also made an application £orvacation of the stay order. The amendmen-t application filed by the petitioneT was replied by the respondents no.6;8 and 9 and^ by respondent no.7. Ihe matter canie up lor heariBg tefore the Court on 26-4-2001 but it was directed to be listed on 2-5-2001. At the request o£ tbe parties, the matter was directed to b~e taken up on 9-5-2001, but because of the rush of the work the matter oame up for considera- tion on 11-5-2001. My Lord The Chief Justice directed that the matter be.listed before this Bench on 4-6-2001 for final disposal. Ihe matter came up for hearing on 7-6-2001 and at tbe request ol the parties it was taken up on 11-6-2001 and with the consent of tbe parties it was finally heard. 4. Shri Aradhe, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that accordiug to bye-law no.28 of Federation, 16 elected Directors, each represeating one district o£ the State o£ Chhattisgarh, and tyo elected Directors from representatives o£ otber Co- operative Societies i.e. 18 elected Directors and nine others would constitute the Federation and as there are only seven Directors including the Chairman.there is no proper constitution o£ the Federation and/as according to rule 45-A a no confidence resolution is to be passed -L— by majori-ty of aot less than 2/5rd of the total elected members of the Committee at a meeting beld £or tiais purpose, neither tbe meeting can be'held nor the petitioner can be removed. Placing reliance upon the proviso appended to sub-rule (1) o£ Rule 43-A, it is submitted by him tha-fc resolution of no eonfidence shall not lie within a period of one year .Erom the date on wb^c the Chairman or Officer has taken ctiargeof his office and as the petitioner has assumed charge on 50-10-2000 the resolution is premature. He also submits that tbe resolution bas to be moved by 1/3rd o£ the elected members byt in the preseut case the same has been moved faue by only/elected members, the motion is bad. It is -furtber contended -that tbe lacguage of Rule 43-A is di-Eferent from the language employed in Section 28 of M.P. Panchayat Raj AdbirJ.yam, 1995, Section 43-A of H.P, Municipalities Act, 1961 and Section 23A and 24 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956w The larguage of this Act and Rules shall prevail. It is also contended by him that tbe conimittee is to, be constituted by as maiy but as 28 memberg/ln the present case on -the date o£ tbe request of tbe motion there were only seven Directors > in absence o£.proper constitution of the committee ttte motion was bad and as the quorum o.E -fche elected members which should not be less than nineaeould not be availab] in the meeting, no meeting can be held. Referring to clause ^[^Sp£ the Ordinance (4/2000), it is submitted by . him tbat if the vacanej.es oeeur due to reconstitution oj Society under sui»-section5(1) of the Ordinance, the reconstituted and the 'corresponding new societies' may fill them by co-option or election or nomination by the Registrar or the State Government in accordance with the provisions o.£ the N.P. Co-operative Societies Act,1960 snd the rules made thereunder. He also submitted that ass^iessxa as in the Ordinance there is no provision relatiug to no confidence motion the office bearers would continue to hold the office till expiry of tbeir term. Referring to the Oudgmerrt o£ the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter o£ Abdul Rashid (supra), it is oontended that the office bearers shall continue till their term expires. 5. Shri Aradhe also submitted that provisions o£ law sbould be harmoniously construed so that illegalities are avoided and the intention o± the legislature is properly projected. Taking exception to all those arguments, Sbri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Advocate General, submits tha' the petition is misconceived. tie submits that proper reading and fair appreciation o£ Rule 45-A would mean that 2/3rd of' the total elected members available on the date of the consideration 01 no confidence.motion must pass the resolution and the words "total elected members" would not mean total elected members constituting the committee but would mean the total elected miembers who are boldiBg the otiice oii the dateof -the meeting. It is also submitted by I him that the proviso appended to Rule 43-A(1) applies to a case where the office bearei- or the Cbairman have taken charge of their respective ol'fice for the first time but present not being a case like that but being a case of continuance in tbe o.ffice the said proviso bas no applicati-on. He submits that the present Chairman assumed •the cfaarge o£ the office on 4-1-1997 and because of the fiction created by the Ordinaace he is continuing in tbe f^ office, a no con.fidence motion could certainly be moved against him. 6. Referring to Section 16 o£K.P. Co-operative Societies Act, it is submitted by him -that on re-orga- nisation or bjfurcation o£ the society the new societies would come into operation and the registration of. tbe old societies would come to a.n end, therefore, to avoid such legal eventuality the fiction was created under Section 5 of the Grdinance but that fiction doss not mean that the persoii who was already holding the o.f.Eice would assume charge on the date of the re0rganlsation« It is also contended by him that in absence o£ the Ordinance every society would become de-£unct..aad to avoid this eventuality and avoid a situation of stand still the Ordinance was promu.Lgated. Referring to a)- P~- ficX &A Sections iSC and 53B< it is contended by bim tha-fc the commit-bee has a power to remove the Chairman.so also the Registrar can also^mbve the Chairman or other office bearers. 7. Learned counsel for the interveners have supp.Qrted . the arguments o.f tbe learned.Advocate General. 8. I bave heard the parties at length and have perused the records. 9. In the matter of Abdul Rasbid vs. State o£ Vl.P. and otbers (Writ Petition No.6240/2000) decided by the HigbCourt o.f M.P. on 5-2-2001, ti-ie peti-tioner had challerged the validity of clause 3(2) of the Ordnance. The High Court after appreciating the rival contentions came to the conclusion that tbe said clause 3(2) ef -the Ordinance was not ultra vires. 10 - 10. Section 61 o£ the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 reads as under : "61. FunctionirK of organi^satipn.registered society or try_st incorporated.pn beliest o£ State Government-(1 ) Notwiths-fcandiEg anytbing contained in the foregoing provisions of this Part of any other law for the time being in force, any organisation, registered society or trust, incprporated at the behest ot tbe State Government, shall, on and .from the appointed day, and until otherwise provided for in any law £or the time being in force, or in any agreement between the successor States, or in any direction issued by the Central Governnent in consultation with the successor States, continue to £urnctioniqg immediately before that day, and tbe Central Government may, after consulting the ^overn- ments of the successor States, issue directio] in relation to such functioning. (2) Any directions issued under sub-section (1) may include directions regardiag the- (i) reconstitu-tion o£ the Board ot Directors of the organisation, society or trust by whatever name it may be called; or (ii) appointment of tbe Cbief Executive by whatever name it may be called; or (iii) regulations or byeiavfs, by wtiatever name they may be called; or (iv) assessmen't and apportionment o.£ financial support, if a.ny, provided by the existing State of Madhya Pradesh £or meeting .Eixed charges." 11. The Ordinance No.4/2000 was promulgated to reconstitute the existing State Co-operative Societies <c^te in the State o£ M.P. by excluding from their area oj: operationg a part ol' the territory saEBXESa'tB^ o£ th .f^'": X5^ 11 - State and to form new societies £or the part o£ the territory so excluded. Clause 2 of •fcbe Ordir^ince de-Eines the existing societies. Madhya ^radesh Rajya Sahkari Vipanan Sangh Maryadit .Ealls within the term, of. existir^ societies. 'Tbe Societies as reconstituted' means the existing societies as reconstituted in accordance witti the provisions o£ Section 3(5) of the Grdinauce. 'The oorrespondirig new society' means tbe Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipanan Sangh Maryadit in relation to the M.P. Rajya Sahkari Vipanan Sangh Maryadit as reconstituted. Number of other correspondirig new societies have also been mentioned in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Ordinance. 12. Section 5(3) of tbe tirdinance reads as under "3(1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx if vacancies occur due to reconsti- •tut.ion o£ societies under sub-section(1), ttae reconstituted and the coiresponding ', new societies may fill them by co-option or el'ection or nomination by the Registrar or the St.ate Government-in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya pradesb Co-operative Societies Act,1960 and the Rules made thereunder." According to Section 5 of the Ordinance , the existing societies sbould be reconstituted by excludiui from their area p£ operations the territories comprise' in 16 districts which have now constituted the State o: Chha'ttisgarh. Ihe corresponding new societj/^ shall be called as Ghbattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Vipanan Sangh Maryadit. Sub-section (2). of Section 3 o.f the Ordinance clearly proviaes that notwithstandirg anything contained in M.P. Co-operative Societies Act and Rules made thereunder the registration ol the existing societies shall not be cancelled and. the of.Eice bearers, tbe Director and the representatives of the existing societies shall continue in their r_espective o£fices_ in the reconstituted or the corresponding new societies,as tbe case may be. It further provides that they may continue in their office till the expiry o.f their term. Sub-sec'tion (2) does nov/here provide that a no con.fidence motion canno-fc be moved against the corresponding new society. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Advoeate Ueneral, is certainly justified in his contention that Section 5(2) has been enacted to avoid tbe wrath of Section 16(10) o£ the 1960 Act (M.F. Co-operative Societies Act,1960). Secfion 16 ol' the Co-operative,Societies Act provides that a socie'ty may resolveS ^.c^its reorganisation by amalgama'tir^g itself with other society or; transferring its assets and liability in whole or iniart to any otber sociefy or, dividing itself into two or more societies or converting itself into a class of. society, the object of which is materially different .Eront that under whieh it has been classified under this Act. Section l6(2)(c) clearly provides for division o£ a society into two or mpre societies. Section 16(5) provides that i£ the Registrar is satisfied tbat it is essential in the public interest or in the interest of the members o£ the a.ffec'fced societies or necessary to secure the proper management ~I a' i^ 15 - of any society, he may diree't that any society or societies shall reorganise itself or themselves in any one ormore of the modes indicated in sub-section (2) of Section 16. The eflect o£ amalgamation and division is provided under Section 16(10) of the Co-operative Societies Act. Accordirg -to sub-section (10), where two or more socie'bies have been amalgamated or a society has been divided or converted, the registration of such a society or societies shall be deemed to have been oancelled on the date of regi stra-tion of. amalgamated society or o.f the converted society or of tbe new societies into wbich tbe society may have been divided. On division of. the existirg societies, on reconstitution o£ the societies and ooming into force of the,correspondi% new societies.the original registration would have come to an end and tbe origina-1 society would have become defunct. The words employed in a provision of law or in a Statute are to be interpre*ated in a manner whicb goes with the intention o£ the l^islature. 13. In the matter of Union of India and othe£s_vs_^ .Filip_Tiagp^e_GaBa_of_Vedem Vasco DeGama.( 1990)1 SCC 2ZZ, the Supreme Court while considering the purpose of incorporating transitional provision in any Act or ameadment observed that the purpose is to clarify as to when and how the operative parts of the enactment. are to take effect. Tbe transitional provisions generally are intended to taks care o£ the events during the period of transition. The Supreme Court further observed that the paramount object in s-tatutory interpretation is to discover what the legislat^ 14 - intended. This intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text o£ enactment in question. That does not mean the text is to be construed merely as a piece of prose, vrithout reference to i-ts nature or puiyose. A statute is neither a literary text nor a divine revelation. "words are certainly not crystals, transparent and unchanged". If there is obvious anomaly in the application o£ law the court could shape the ]a w to remove the anomaly. if the strict ;ramatical interpretation gives rise to absurdity or inconsistency, the court could discard such interpre- tation and adopt an interpretation v/bicb will give effect to the purpose of the legisla-ture. That could bi done, if necessary even by modification o£ the language used. Ihe legislators do not always deal with specific controversies which the courts decide. Ihey incorporatg general purpose behind the statutory words and it is lor the courts to decide specific cases. If a given case is well within the general purpose of the legislature but not witb.in the literal meanirg o£ tbe statute, then ttie court must strike the balance. 14. In the matter of Skandia Insyrance Co.Ltd. vs, Kokilaben Chandravadan and others, ^_1987j_2_SCC_654 , in para 13 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under : 13. In order to divine the interition of the l^islature in the course o£ irrfcer- pretation o£ tbe relevant provisions, there can scaroely be a better test than •that of probing into the motive and philosophy o£ the relevant provisions keeping in mind the goals to be achieKe.d by enac'ting the same.......' 15. 15 In the matter of Stat^e ofTamil Nadu vs. Kodaikanal Motor Union Pvt.Ltd., I^S86J_3_SCC_S1^ in paragraph 17 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under ; "17. The courts must always seek to find out the intention o£ tbe legislature. Though the courts must find out the intention o£ the statute from the language used, but language more often than not is an imperfect instrument of expression of human thought. As Lord Denning said it would be idle •to expect every statutory provision to be drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. As Judge Learned Hand said, we must not aake a fortress out of dictionary but remember that statutes must have some purpose or ohject, whose imagi- native discovery is judicial craftsmanship.- Ve need not always cling to literalness and should seek to endeavour to avoid an unjust or absurd result. We should not make a mockery o£ legislation. To make sense out o£ an unhappily worded provision, where the purpose is apparent to the judicial eye ' some' violence to language is permissible." 16. Tbe question o£ interpretation again came up £or consideration before the Suprane Court in the mattei of Reserve Baak of India vs. Peerless General Fi.nance and Investmen-t Co.Ltd. and other^, Il287_l I SCC_A2Ai in para 55 is^ of tbe judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under : "Interpretation must depend on the text and context. They are the bases of interpretation, One may well say if the test is the texture, contex'fc is what giveS tbe