IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-12-2005 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.MASILAMANI and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELU W.P.Nos.13354 to 13358, 13772, 14028, 14295, 15193 and 16845 of 2001; 32303 of 2002; and 26396, 30108, 29407/2004, 24287/2005, 29961, 29390, 29959, 29960, 21288, 32513, 29618, 29266, 26593, 25105, 30845, 34105, 25082, 28940, 30090 and 31167 of 2004 W.P.M.P.Nos. 30989 to 30993, 20372, 20802, 20201, 24968 and 24969 of 2001; 46961 of 2002; and 36690, 41228, 30483, 35151, 36542 and 37766 of 2004 W.V.M.P.Nos. 591 and 528 to 530 of 2005 ---- K.Nithiyanantham ..Petitioner in WP.13354/2001. M.Lakshmanan ..Petitioner in WP 13355/2001 K.Ramasamy ..Petitioner in WP 13356/2001 S.Balan ..Petitioner in WP 13357/2001 V.M.Janakiraman ..Petitioner in WP 13358/2001 A.Karuppannan ..Petitioner in WP 13772/2001 J.Moorthy ..Petitioner in WP 14028/2001 S.Vijayakumar ..Petitioner in WP 14295/2001 N.Panneer Selvam ..Petitioner in WP 15193/2001 S.Thangavel ..Petitioner in WP 16845/2001 V.Sundaramurthy ..Petitioner in WP 32303/2002 N.Ganapathy ..Petitioner in WP 26396/2004 P.Rajandran ..Petitioner in WP 30108/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ K.P.Aruchamy ..Petitioner in WP 29407/2004 M.Madheswaran ..Petitioner in WP 24287/2005 S.M.Venkidusamy ..Petitioner in WP 29961/2004 K.Balan ..Petitioner in WP 29390/2004 S.Mohanasundaram ..Petitioner in WP 29959/2004 K.Murugesan ..Petitioner in WP 29960/2004 G.Murugesan ..Petitioner in WP 21288/2004 P.Umapathy ..Petitioner in WP 32513/2004 S.Velusamy ..Petitioner in WP 29618/2004 R.Rasappan ..Petitioner in WP 29266/2004 S.Krishnamoorthy ..Petitioner in WP 26593/2004 V.M.Velmurugan ..Petitioner in WP 25105/2004 G.Chinnasamy ..Petitioner in WP 30845/2004 K.R.Nallasamy ..Petitioner in WP 34105/2004 K.Ramasamy ..Petitioner in WP 25082/2004 R.Manickam ..Petitioner in WP 28940/2004 P.Raman ..Petitioner in WP 30090/2004 1.G.Baskaran 2.C.Rajagopal 3.R.Nallathambi ..Petitioners 1 to 3 in WP 31167/2004 vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Director of Handlooms & Textiles, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108. ..Respondents 1 and 2 in WP.Nos. 13354 to 13358/2001. 1st Respondent in WP.13772/2001. Respondents 1 and 2 in WP.14028, 14295, 15193, 26296, 30108, 29407/2004, 24287/2005, 29961, 29390, 29959, 29960 and 21288/2004. 3. Aringnar Anna Silk Handlooms Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Limited, N.K.H-1, 498-499, Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram. .. 3rd Respondent in WP.13354/01 1.Kancheepuram Tiruvalluvar Silk Handlooms Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Limited N.G.2054, 311/217, Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram. ..R3 in WP 13355/2001 2.Kancheepuram Silk Handlooms Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Limited VT.No.G.1099,443 Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram. ..R3 in WP 13356/2001 3.Kancheepuram Dr.Kalaingnar Karunanidhi Silk Handlooms Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Limited, K-H-4 88-89, Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram. ..R3 in WP 13357/2001 4.Kancheepuram Murugan Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Limited NG 1653, Door No.79, Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram. ..R3 in WP 13358/2001 5.2) State by its Secretary to Govt. Housing and Urban Development Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 3) The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing ) Adyar, Chennai 20. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4) Erode Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., No.9782, No.54, Balasubbarayalu Street, Erode 638 001. ..Respondents 2 to 4 in WP 13772/2001 RR 2 & 3 in WP 14295/2001 6.3. The Deputy Director of Handlooms'and Textiles, Kancheepuram. 4.Kancheepuram Vallalar Silk Handlooms Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Limited K.H.54, 133, A & B, Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram 631 502 ..RR3 & 4 in WP 14028/2001 7.Dr. Ambedkar Salem city Co-op. House Building Society Ltd., No.S.1523,No.50, Causway Street Gugai, Salem -6, Rep. By its Special Officer. ..R4 in WP 14295/2001 8.The Thirubuvanam Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sale Society Ltd., 2.322 Thirubuvanam represented by its Special Officer. ..R3 in WP 15193/2001 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection, Fort St. George, Chennai.9 2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies NVN Maaligai, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 3. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Officer of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Karungalpalayam, Erode District. 4. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Karungalpalayam Erode District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Special Officer A.A. 209 Erasinampalayam Primary Agriculture Co-operative Bank, Erasinampalayam Mulanoor , Erode District. R5 impleaded as per order of Court dated 12.11.2001 in W.P.M.P.31897/2001 ... RR1 to 5 in W.P.16845/2001 1. The State of Tamilnadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Department of Consumer Food and Cooperation, Madras -9. 2. The Joint Registrar/ Managing Director, The Erode District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., No.124.A Perundurai Road, Erode.11 3. The Special Officer, Chinthamani, A – Unit of the Erode District, Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., Erode. ... RR1 To 3 in W.P.32303/2002 3. The Assistant Director of Handlooms & Textiles, Coimbatore – 641 011 4. No. CH-106 Palladam Powerloom Weaver Co-operative Production & sale Society Ltd., rep by its Special Officer No.6, Trichy Road, Palladam, Coimbatore – 641 664. ... RR3 & 4 in W.P.26396/2004 & R3 in W.P.30108/2004 R3 in W.P.29407/2004 R3 in W.P.29961/2004 R3 in W.P.29390/2004 R3 in W.P.29960/2004 R3 in W.P.21288/2004 No.CH.12 Somanur Powerloom Weaver Co-operative Production & Sale Society Ltd., rep by its Special Officer, No.79 Murugan Rice Mill Compound Main road, Somanur, Coimbatore 641 668. ... R4 in W.P.30108/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.CH.126 Sulur Powerloom Weaver Cooperative Production & Sale Society represented by its Special Officer No.232, Trichy Road, Sulur, Coimbatore ... R4 in W.P.29407/2004 The Assistant Director of Handlooms & Textiles, 486, Bhavani Road, Erode District No.T.H.95, Pallaipalayam Powerloom Weavers Cooperative P & S Society Ltd, rep by its Special Officer, No.209, R.S. Road, Pallaipalayam, Namakkal District 638 006. ... RR 3 & 4 in W.P.24287/2005 R3 in W.P.29959/2004 No.CH.174, Sri Bhagavathy Powerloom Weaver Cooperative Production & sale Society Ltd rep by its Special Officer, Kalivelampatti, Kalvatti Thottam, Palladam, Coimbatore 641 664. ... R4 in W.P.29961/2004 No.CH.140, Aringar Anna Powerloom Weaver Cooperative Production & sale Society Ltd., rep.by its Special Officer Main Road, Kaipalayam, Coimbatore District ... R4 in W.P.29390/2004 4. No.EH.186 Sivagiri Velavan Powerloom Weaver Co-operative Production & sale Society Ltd., rep by its Special Officer, No.4/135, Nall Road, Ganapathipalayam Po Erode District 638 153 5. L.P. Balasubramanian 6. P. Sellappan 7. K. Murugesan RR 5 to 7 impleaded as per order dated 16.11.2004 by AKJ in WMPs 38135, 38054 & 38617 of 2004 respectively ... RR4 to 7 in W.P.29959/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.CH.143, Somanur Thiruvalluvar Powerloom Weaver Cooperative Production & sale Society Ltd., rep.by its Special Officer, Somanur Main Road, Somanur Coimbatore ... R4 in W.P.29960/2004 The Special Officer, Inchipatti Powerlooms Weavers Cooperative Production and sales Society Ltd., No.CH.137, Samalapuram 641 663 Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District. ... R4 in W.P.21288/2004 1. The Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles Saibaba Colony 2nd Cross Street, Bharathi Park, Coimbatore 11 2. The Special Officer, Kongunadu Powerloom Weavers Cooperative Production and sales Society Ltd., No.C.H.136, Merlin Street, Kalipalayam, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District. ... RR1 and 2 in W.P.32513/2004 R1 in W.P.29618/2004 R1 in W.P.29266/2004 R1 in W.P.26593/2004 R1 in W.P.30845/2004 2. The Special Officer, Thiyaki Kumaran Powerloom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd., No.C.H.132 Ayyampalayam, Samalapuram 641 663 Coimbatore District ... R2 in W.P.29618/2004 2. The Special Officer, Echipatti Powerloom Weavers Production and Sales Society Ltd., No.C.H.137 1/14C, Eswaran Koil Street, Samalapuram 641 663 Coimbatore District ... R2 in W.P.29266 & 26593 and 30845/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. The Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, 426 Bhavani Main Road, Veerappanchatram, Erode 4 The Special Officer EH 187 Thanthai Periyar Powerloom Weavers Cooperative Production and sales Society Ltd., D.No.35 Kongu Nagar, 1st Street, Municipal Colony, Erode 4 ... RR1 and 2 in W.P.25105/2004 R1 in W.P.34105/2004 R1 in W.P.25082/2004 R1 in W.P.28940/2004 R1 in W.P.30090/2004 and R1 in W.P.31167/2004 The Special Officer E.H. NO. 165 Sakthi Power Loom Weavers Cooperative Productive and Sales Society Ltd No.269 Bhavani Main Road Perundurai, Erode District ... R2 in WP 34105/2004 The Special Officer Erode Powerloom Weavers Production and Sales Society Ltd, NO.E.H. 147 D.No.48 Chozhan Street Veerappanchatram, Erode 4 ... R2 in WP 25082/2004 The Special Officer E.H. 191 Ashokapuram Power loom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd D.NO.40/1 Dheeran Chinnamalai Street, Ashokapuram, Veerappanchatram, Erode – 4 ...R2 in WP NO. 28940/2004 The Special Officer EH 155, Kasipalayam Adidravidar Powerloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd, K.K. Nagar Kasipalayam Erode 638 009 ... R2 in WP 30090/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Special Officer EH, 185, Aringar Anna Powerloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd Veerappanchatram, Erode 4 ... R2 in WP 31167/2004 Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, 1. Declaring that the Amendment Act 12/2001 is arbitrary, unreasonable ultra-virus, void ab-initio and unconstitutional in so far as the Petitioner is concerned (WP 13354 to 13358/2001) prayer amended as per order of court dated 12.11.2001 in WMP NO. 30989/2001 to 30993 of 2001. 2. Declaring the Tamil Nadu Ordinance NO.3 of 2001 dated 12.06.2001 published in Part IV, Sec. 2 of Government Gazette No.403, Dated 12.06.2001 is ultravies and void abinito in so far to the petitioner 29960/2004 WP 29961, 29390, 29959/2004 (WP NO. 13772, 14295/2001) 26396/2004, 30108/2004, 29407/2004) 3. Declaring that the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.3 of 2001 is arbitrarily unreasonable Ultra-virus to the Constitution of India void ab-initio and unconditional in so far as petitioner is concerned. (WP 14028/2001, 15193/2001 4. Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Act 12 of 2001 which has been inserted as section 89-A in the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies as Sec 89-A quash the same and direct the respondents not to admit new Members or remove 'existing members' in the A.A. 209 Erasimampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd, Erode District (WP 16845/2001) 5. Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from enrolling new members in the Erode District Consumers Cooperative Whole Sale Stores Limited Erode-11 as per order (WP 32303/2002) 6. Declaring section 89A of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is ultra virus invalid arbitrary void ab-initio as per order (WP 24287/2005) 7. Declaring that the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2001) is arbitrarily unreasonable ultra-virus to the Constitution of India void ab-initio as unconstitutional in so far as the petitioner is concerned (WP 21288/2004) 8. Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from enrolling new members in the Kongunadu Powerloom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd. No.CH 136 Merlin Street, Kalipalayam Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District (WP 32513/2004) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from enrolling new members in the Thiyaki Kumaran Powerloom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd No.CH 132 Ayyampalayam Somalapuram, 641 663, Coimbatore District (WP 29618/2004) 10. Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from enrolling new members in Echipatti Powerloom Weavers Production and Sales Society Ltd., No. CH 137, 1/14-C Eswaran Kovil Street, Somalapuram 641 663 Coimbatore District by considering the petitioners representation dated 14.09.2004 (WP 29266, 26593, 30845/2004) 11. Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from enrolling new members in E.H.187, Thanthai Periyar Powerloom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd. D.No.35, Kongu Nagar 1st Street, Municipal Colony, Erode-4 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.8.2004 (WP.No.25105/2004). 12. Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from enrolling new members in EH.165, Sakthi Powerloom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd. 269, Bhavani Main Road, Perundurai, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District (WP.No.34105/2004). 13. Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from enrolling new members in Erode Powerloom Weavers Production and Sales Society Ltd. EH.147, Veerappanchatram, Erode by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.8.2004 (WP.No.25082/2004). 14. Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from enrolling new members in EH.191, Ashokapuram Powerloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd. D.No.40/1, Deeran Chinnamalai Street, Ashokapuram, Veerappanchatram, Erode-4 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 4.10.2004 (WP.No.28940/2004). Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from enrolling new members in EH.155, Kasipalayam Adidravidar Powerloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., Kasipalayam, Erode-9 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.10.2004 (WP.30090/2004). Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from enrolling new members in EH.185, Arignar Anna Powerloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., Veerappanchatram, Erode-4 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.10.2004 (WP.31167/2004) For Petitioners in W.P.Nos. 13354 to 13358 of 2001 : Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy,S.C. for Mr.M.Sriram For Petitioners in W.P.Nos. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13772 and 14295 of 2001 : Mr.C.Prakasam For Petitioner in W.P.No. 15193 of 2001 : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, S.C. for Mr.S.Ravi For Petitioner in W.P.No. 16845 of 2001 : Ms.G.R.Indra For Petitioners in W.P.Nos. 14028 of 2001 and 21288 of 2004 : Mr.G.Devadoss For Petitioners in W.P.Nos. 32302 of 2002 and 32513, 29618, 29266, 26593, 25105, 30845, 34105, 25082, 28940, 30090 and 31167 of 2004 : Mr.N.Manokaran For Petitioners in W.P.Nos. 26396, 30108, 29407, 24287, 29961, 29390, 29959 and 29960 of 2004 : Mr.G.Ethirajulu For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Chandran, A.G. Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Addl.A.G. Mr.V.Raghupathi, G.P. Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, AGP Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Mr.P.S.Jayakumar Mr.M.Mahalingam Mr.C.Ramesh Mr.K.M.Vijayan,S.C.for Mr.A.Kumaraguru Ms.L.Arivukarasi Mr.S.Gomathinayagam CO M M O N O R D E R M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. The question referred for consideration of this Full Bench is as follows: "Whether Section 89-A of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 introduced through the amendment Act 12 of 2001 conferring powers on the Special Officer to admit new members in the Co- operative Society is arbitrary, unreasonable, ultra vires and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unconstitutional, as it is the usurpation of judicial power? 2. Raising the said question several writ petitions had been filed before the learned single Judge. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in Kattappan's case (A.I.R.2000 S.C.2378), held that the Special Officer has no power to admit the new members as it would affect the composition of the society and fundamental rights of the members and as such, the legislature would be incompetent to give statutory recognition to such a power being exercised by the Special Officer. However, the learned single Judge on the basis of the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.7442 of 1992 etc. dated 21.12.1995, expressing that the Special Officer has power to enrol new members, thought it fit to refer to the larger Bench by the order dated 9.4.2002. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Chief Justice ordered for hearing by this Full Bench. 3. The main contentions urged by the counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the introduction of Section 89A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1983, before this Full Bench are two-fold. They are as follows: 1) The Supreme Court in Shantharaj's case reported in A.I.R.1997 S.C.2925 and Kuttappan's case reported in A.I.R.2000 S.C.2378 had declared and laid down that the enrolment of new members in the Co-operative Society by the Special Officers would be detrimental to the democratic process of the Society and such a power should be exercised by an Elected Committee only, as the Co-operative Society is expected to function in a democratic manner. Therefore, the introduction of new Section 89A vesting the discretion on the Special Officers to enrol new members in the Society would be violative of law laid down by the Supreme Court, as the Legislature cannot pass a law in an attempt to validate an unconstitutional action. 2) Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form a Society. The right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) not only includes the right to start an association, but also continue it, refuse to be a member of an Association, if he desires. It also includes the right that the composition of a society shall not be altered by law as to introduce the members other than who voluntarily join the Society, without the consent of members of the original Society. It is true that the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) is not an absolute right and can be reasonably restricted on the grounds enumerated in Clause (4) of Article 19(1)(c). These restrictions can be made by enacting law only in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality. The Clause (4) of Article 19 would not apply to the present case as Section 89(A) is not saved in any of the grounds of Clause (4) of Article 19. Thus, this unreasonableness is in violation of Article 19(1) (c) and not saved under Clause (4) of Article 19. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The counsel for the petitioners would cite the following authorities dealing with the powers of the Legislature which cannot pass a law which would be violative to the law declared by the Court: (1) 1969(2)S.C.C.283(P.C.MILLS LTD. v. BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY); (2) A.I.R.1981 S.C.271 (WAMAN RAO v. UNION OF INDIA); (3) 1999(8) Supreme 351 (I.R.COELHO v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU); (4) J.T.2001(6) S.C.183 (DISTRICT MINING OFFICER v. TATA IRON & STEEL CO.). 5. The counsel for the petitioners with regard to the second point in relation to the infringement of the fundamental right, would mainly rely upon the decision reported in A.I.R.1971 S.C.966 (DAMAYANTI v. UNION OF INDIA). 6. In reply to the above contentions, the counsel for the respondents would make the submissions, the gist of which is given below: (1) In Shantharaj's case (A.I.R.1997 S.C. 2925) and Kuttappan's case (A.I.R.2000 S.C. 2378), the Supreme Court dealt with the scope and content of the power of the Special Officer appointed upon supersession of the Committee in terms of Sections 30 of the Karnataka Act and 32 of the Kerala Act. The Supreme Court pointed out that those provisions in Karnataka and Kerala Acts which are analogous to Sections 88(2) and 89(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act would not confer powers on the Special Officers or Administrative Officers to admit new members. In those cases, the Supreme Court had not dealt with the question as to whether the Act could make a provision empowering an Officer to enrol eligible members or as to whether such a provision is valid or not. The Tamil Nadu Legislature taking note of the observations of the Supreme Court while dealing with the power comprehended in the Karnataka and Kerala Acts which is similar to Sections 88(2) and 89(2), which would not enable the enrolment of new members, has thought it fit to enact the impugned provisions under Tamil Nadu Act empowering the Special Officer to enrol new members. Such enactments by Legislature taking note of the defect pointed out by the Supreme Court and rectifying the same is a well-known and valid principle as it is legally permissible for the Legislature by way of Revalidation Act to enable something which was decided by judgment of the Court and as such, the impugned provision is not an usurpation of judicial power. 2) The admission of a member of a Society is governed by a statute and by-laws of the Society under Section 21 of the Co-operative Societies Act. It is therefore there is no fundamental right in regulating the rights of the admission of members of any Society. Article 19(1)(c) would have no application to a Co-operative Society, which is a creature of a Statute. This is a body Corporate under Section 39. Therefore, the complaint of violation of Article 19(1)(c) is liable to be rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The counsel for the respondents would refer to the following authorities in order to show that it is open to the Legislature to pass a law to render judgments of Courts ineffective by rectifying the defects pointed out in the said judgments: 1) A.I.R. 1970 S.C.192 (SHRI P.C.MILLS v. BROACH MUNICIPALITY); 2) A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1431 (INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. v. STATE OF KERALA); 3) A.I.R. 1997 S.C.1815 (STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. M/S.AROORAN SUGARS LTD.); 4) A.I.R.1997 S.C.3127 (S.S.BOLA v. B.D.SARDANA); 5) A.I.R.2003 S.C.1266 (WELFARE ASSOCN. A.R.P., MAHARASHTRA v. RANJIT P.GOHIL ); 6) A.I.R.2003S.C.2236 (BAKHTAWAR TRUST v. M.D.NARAYAN). 8. The counsel for the respondents would cite the following authorities in order to show that the exercise of fundamental right as a member would not apply to the Co-operative Society which is a body corporate: 1) 1997 (3) S.C.C. 681 (STATE OF U.P. v. C.O.D. CHHEOKI EMPLOYEES' COOP. SOCIETY LTD.); 2) 2005 (5) S.C.C. 632 (ZORASTRIAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, COOP. SOCIETIES (URBAN); 3) A.I.R.1985 S.C.973 (DAMAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB); 4) A.I.R.1997 S.C.1413 (STATE OF U.P. v. C.O.D.CHHEOKI EMPLOYEES' CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.); 5) A.I.R.2000 S.C.2306 (STATE OF BIHAR v. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH). 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties who argued at length and given our anxious consideration to their rival contentions. We have also perused the written submissions filed by Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel, Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel, Mr.G.Devadoss and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners and the written submissions in reply filed by Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General, Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned senior counsel and Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. On a careful consideration of their oral and written submissions raising two major points, it is clear that both these points would overlap each other which may require a combined analysis. 11. The main aspect of the matter which revolves around is with reference to the disturbance to the democratic set up of the Co-operative Society affecting the rights of General Body of the Society by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ introduction of Section 89A, as against the law declared by the Supreme Court. 12. Let us now first deal with the alleged usurpation of the judicial power by reason of the introduction of Section 89A of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act. 13. With reference to the above aspect, it would be worthwhile to refer to some of the decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) In A.I.R.1994 S.C.1 (STATE OF HARYANA v. KARNAL CO-OP. F.S.LIMITED), it is held as follows: "A Legislature while has the legislative power to render ineffective the earlier judicial decisions, by removing or altering or neutralising the legal basis in the unamended law on which such decisions were founded, even retrospectively, it does not have the power to render ineffective the earlier judicial decisions by making a law which simply declares the earlier judicial decisions as invalid or not binding for such power if exercised would not be a legislative power but a judicial power which cannot be encroached upon by a Legislature under our Constitution." (ii) In AIR 1996 SC 1431 (INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. v. STATE OF KERALA), it is observed thus: "In exercising legislative power, the Legislature by mere declaration, without anything more, cannot directly overrule, revise or override a judicial decision. It can render judicial decision ineffective by enacting valid law on the topic within its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its character retrospectively. The changed or altered conditions are such that the previous decision would not have been rendered by the Court, if those conditions had existed at the time of declaring the law as invalid." 14. Through the above observations, it is made clear that any law made by the Legislature declaring the earlier judicial decision ineffective or invalid would not be a valid legislative power as it would amount to encroaching upon the judicial power by Legislature. Of course, it is true that the Supreme Court in various decisions referred to above held that it is open to the Legislature to pass a law to render judgments of Courts ineffective by rectifying the defects pointed out in the said judgments. 15. In the light of the above settled law, the question now arises is whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kuttappan's case would merely point out the defects contained in the Act or give any ratio decidendi declaring that there shall be no vesting of the powers on the Special Officers to enrol new members in the Co-operative Society. 16. While analysing the above question, it would be proper to refer to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the relevant observation made by the Supreme Court in Kuttappan's case reported in AIR 2000 SC 2378, which is said to be 'ratio decidendi'. The same is as follows: "We may add that a Co-operative Society is expected to function in a democratic manner through an elected Committee of Management and that Committee of Management is empowered to enrol new members. Enrolment of new members would involve alteration of the composition of the society itself and such a power should be exercised by an elected Committee rather than by an administrator or a Committee appointed by the Registrar while the Committee Management is under supersession." 17. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the above observation made by the Supreme Court is a ratio decidendi which indicates that the Co-operative Society is to function in a democratic