1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R DHOLI KHEDA (HARIPURA) MAHILA GRAM VIKASH DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD. V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 707/97. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. DATE OF ORDER :::: 29th January,2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. D. K. Parihar, for Petitioner. Mr.P. S. Bhati, for Respondent. N.K.Mehta, Deputy Government Counsel, for the State – respondents. BY THE COURT: The Petitioner - Dholi Kheda (Haripura) Mahila Gram Vikash Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. District – Bhilwara, in this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 16.01.1997 and the letter dated 14.11.1996, addressed to the Managing Director, Bhilwara District Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. The challenge has also been made to the order dated 2 16.01.1985 issued by Institution Development Officer, Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Jaipur, which provides for the method, basis and procedure for classification of different milk co-operative societies in three categories on the basis of the formula contained therein. Shri D. K. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner-Society was illegally debarred from participating in the election on the ground that its accounts for the previous financial years were not audited and, therefore, it could not be categorized as per procedure contained in the circular dated 16.01.1985, issued by the I.D.O. It was further argued that respondents had no authority in law to make a distinction between one society and another merely on the basis of the fact that its accounts are not audited and, for that matter, on the basis of business of the society by awarding marks on parameters as provided by circular dated 16.01.1985. Learned counsel also argued that the I.D.O. could not categorize the societies in A, B, and C categories as per the information sent to the Managing Director, Bhilwara District Dugdh Utpadakas Sahakari Samiti Ltd. by Special Auditor of the Co- operative Societies, Bhilwara in his communication dated 14.01.1996. The learned counsel, therefore, argued that categorization of societies which are otherwise equally situated, 3 amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such categorization is opposed to the principles and object of Co- operative movement which is to create public awakening and it gives right to every member of the Society to participate in its management. The learned counsel, in support of his argument, relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jaisingrao Pandurang Badadare & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others, in Writ Petition No.2170 of 1984, decided on 8th July, 1985, Co- operative Cases Vol.I Page-263. On the other hand, Shri P. S. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent-I.D.O. and Shri N.K.Mehta, learned Deputy Government Counsel, for Government – respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that classification of the Societies on the basis of their business potential, number of members, contributing milk, facilities provided by the Society to its members and milk of the cattles which they supply, the financial discipline, regular auditing of account, making the formal inspection possible and meeting the audit objections in time are also such factors which make the criteria by awarding different marks and ranking to the Society on the basis of which ultimate classification is made. It was argued that the classification, based on these criteria, i.e., A, B and C categories, is a just and reasonable ground, having a rational relationship with the object 4 sought to be achieved. Shri P.S. Bhati, learned counsel, argued that the Society which fulfills all these criteria and gets its accounts audited and financially well-placed, cannot be bracaketed with the society which does not have any financial status and whose accounts are not audited. Classification, according to the learned counsel, therefore, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Shri Bhati, in support of his argument, relied on the judgments in Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. K. Kunjambu, (1980) 1 SCC 340; N. Balaji v. Virendra Singh & Others, (2004) 8 SCC 312; and Uda Ram & three Others v. The State of Rajasthan & Others, 1992 (3) WLC (Rajasthan) 192. On consideration of the criteria laid down in the circular issued by the I.D.O. and R.C.D.F., Jaipur, coupled with the bye- laws No.20. 1 (1) & (2), it appears that the petitioner milk society which is a member of Bhilwara Dugdh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., is annually required to get its accounts audited. Classification of the society in A, B & C category is made on that basis as per instructions of the State Government. The State Government, in the exercise of its discretion, can also permit the Societies which are, upon auditing, placed in the category A, B and C, and a restriction has been placed that such Societies shall not be permitted to take part in the election which have not been categorized in the previous audit. 5 Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner-Society was not audited for the financial year immediately preceding the date of notification of election. But, on that ground itself, the entire system of classification cannot cannot be said to be unreasonable as it does not give any unbriddled or unguided powers to the Authorities and the State Government. It is based on some stated principles, procedure and method on which each society is assessed and marks are awarded. The judgment, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, pertains to voting right to the members of the management committee of a primary society in an election of a federal society, in which unequal voting rights were given to different societies. No such case has been made out by the petitioner, in the present case. On the principles of law laid down in the various Supreme Court judgments, relied on behalf of the respondents, it cannot be said that the classification made by the respondents between the societies of categories A, B & C is unreasonable or otherwise, unjust. The societies, which are even otherwise regulated by the rules and are audited can be placed in different categories. Moreover, the classification of the society is based on the criteria provided for in the circular issued by the I.D.O., cannot be said to be otherwise violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and the Government 6 decision, in this respect, has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Udaram case, supra. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. scd