Case: Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, Trivandrum And Anr Vs. K. Kunhambu &amp; Ors

the Act was to improve the economic and social conditions of peasants and ensure the full and efficient use of land for agricultural. Bearing in mind the Preamble and the material provisions of the Act, it was held that the power delegated was within permissible limits. 7. In Jyoti Pershad v. The Admi nistrator for the Union Territories of Delhi, (1) Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. made some useful observations which may be extracted here: In regard to this matter we desire to make two observations. In the context of modern conditions an d the variety and complexity of the situations which present themselves for solution, it is not possible for the Legislature to envisage in detail every possibility and make provisions for them. The Legislature therefore is forced to leave the authorities created by it an ample discretion limited, however, by the guidance afforded by the Act. This is the ratio of delegated legislation, and is a process which has come to stay, and which one ma y be permitted to observe is not without its advantages. So long therefore as the Legislature indicates, in the operative provisions of the statute with certainty, the policy and purpose of the enactment, the mere fact that the legislation is skeletal, or the fact that a discretion is left to those entrusted with administering the law, affords no basis either for the contention that there has been an excessive delegation of legislative power as to amount to an abdication of its functions, or that the discretion vested is uncanalised and unguided as to amount to a carte blanche to discriminate. The second is that if the power or discretion has been conferred in a manner which is legal and constitutional, the fact that Parliament could possibly have made more detailed provisions, could obviously not be a ground for invalidating the law. 8. In Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad v. The State of Bombay, (2) the question was about the vires of s. 29 of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act. It gave power to the State Government to add to, or amend, or cancel any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the schedule in accordance with prevailing local conditions. The attack was on the ground that legislative power had been delegated to an extent not permissible. The Court while noticing that s. 29 itself did not provide for any criterion for deter mining which item of agricultural produce should be put into the schedule, nevertheless upheld its vires on the ground that guidance was writ large in the various provisions and the scheme of the Act. It was observed that in each case the State Government had to consider whether the volume of trade in the produce was of such a nature as to give rise to wholesale trade so as to merit inclusion in the schedule.Let us now turn to s. 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies A ct, 1932 whose vires is in question and which is as follows:- S. 60: The State Government may, by general or special order, exempt any registered society from any of the provisions of this Act or may direct that such provisions shall apply to such society with such modifications as may be specified in the order. The provision is a near Henry VIII clause. But to give it a name is not to hang it. We must examine the preamble, the scheme and other available material to see if there are any discernible guidelines. Sure the Cooperative Societies Act is a welfare legislation. Its preamble proclaims: Whereas it is expedient further to facilitate the formation and working of co-operative societies for the promotion of thrift, self-help and mutual aid among agriculturists and other persons with common economic needs so as to bring about better living, better business and better methods of production and for that purpose to consolidate and amend the law relating to co-operative societies in the State of Madras. 9. The policy of the Act is there and so are the guidelines. Why the legislation ? To facilitate the formation and working of Cooperative Societies. Cooperative Societies, for what purpose ? For the promotion of thrift, self-help and mutual aid. Amongst whom ? Among agriculturists and other persons with common economic needs. To what end ? To bring about better living, better business and better methods of production. The objectives are clear; the guidelines are there. There are numerous provisions of the Act dealing with registration of societies, rights and liabilities of members , duties of registered societies, privileges of registered societies, property and funds of registered societies, inquiry and inspection, supersession of committees of societies, dissolution of societies, surcharge and attachment , arbitration etc. We refrain from referring to the details of the provisions except to say that they are generally designed to further the objectives set out in the preamble. But, numerous as the provisions are, they are not capable of meeting the extensive demands of the complex situations which may arise in the course of the working of the Act and the formation and the functioning of the societies. In fact, the too rigorous application of some of the provisions of the Act may itself occasionally result in frustrating the very objects of the Act instead of advancing them. It is to provide for such situations that the Government is invested by s. 60 with a power to relax the occasional rigour of the provisions of the Ac t and to advance the objects of the Act. Section 60 empowers the State Government to exempt a registered society from any of the provisions of the Act or to direct that such provision shall apply to such society with specified modifications. The power given to the Government under s. 60 of the Act is to be exercised so as to advance the policy and objects of the Act, according to the guidelines as may be gleaned from the preamble and other provisions which we have already pointed out, are clear.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Lawyers and judges have never ceased to be interested in the question of delegated legislation and since the Delhi Laws Act case, we have been blessed(?) by an abundance of authority, the blessing not necessarily unmixed. We do not wish, in this case, to search for the precise principles decided in the Delhi Laws Act case, nor to consider whether N. K. Papiah &Sons v. Excise Commissioner(1) beats the final retreat from the earlier position. For the purposes of this case we are content to accept the policy and guidelines theory and seek such assistance as we may derive from cases where near identical provisions have been consideredThe policy of the Act is there and so are the guidelines. Why the legislation ? To facilitate the formation and working of Cooperative Societies. Cooperative Societies, for what purpose ? For the promotion of thrift,p and mutual aid. Amongst whom ? Among agriculturists and other persons with common economic needs. To what end ? To bring about better living, better business and better methods of production. The objectives are clear; the guidelines are there. There are numerous provisions of the Act dealing with registration of societies, rights and liabilities of members , duties of registered societies, privileges of registered societies, property and funds of registered societies, inquiry and inspection, supersession of committees of societies, dissolution of societies, surcharge and attachment , arbitration etc. We refrain from referring to the details of the provisions except to say that they are generally designed to further the objectives set out in the preamble. But, numerous as the provisions are, they are not capable of meeting the extensive demands of the complex situations which may arise in the course of the working of the Act and the formation and the functioning of the societies. In fact, the too rigorous application of some of the provisions of the Act may itself occasionally result in frustrating the very objects of the Act instead of advancing them. It is to provide for such situations that the Government is invested by s. 60 with a power to relax the occasional rigour of the provisions of the Ac t and to advance the objects of the Act. Section 60 empowers the State Government to exempt a registered society from any of the provisions of the Act or to direct that such provision shall apply to such society with specified modifications. The power given to the Government under s. 60 of the Act is to be exercised so as to advance the policy and objects of the Act, according to the guidelines as may be gleaned from the preamble and other provisions which we have already pointed out, are clear.We are therefore of the view that s. 60 is not void on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power.