Partly allowed

Kolhapur District Labours Co-Operative Societies Federation Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Rural Development and Irrigation and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2012WP/1410/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners challenged two conditions under Government Resolution regarding Labour Co-operative Societies. The High Court held that requiring all members to be literate was arbitrary and unrelated to the objective of supporting weaker sections, quashing the clause. The court dismissed the challenge to withdrawing the bid exemption for small contracts, viewing it as restoring equality. Petitio

What did the court decide?

Clause 4E of the Government Resolution requiring all members to be literate is quashed and set aside.

Kolhapur District Labours Co-Operative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

WP-2328-1410

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2328 OF 2012

¶5

State Labour Cooperative Societies Federation Ltd., Pune & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1410 OF 2012

¶7

Kolhapur District Labours Cooperative Societies Federation Ltd., Kolhapur & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Sr. Advocate, a/w. Mr. P.N. Joshi for the Petitioners in WP/2328/2012.

¶9

Mr. Amit B. Borkar for the Petitioners in WP/1410/2012.

¶10

Mr. Sameer Patil, A.G.P., for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & R.G. KETKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 8 TH OCTOBER, 2012.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the

parties.

1/5

Dixit

WP-2328-1410

These Petitions by Labour Cooperative Societies raise two points. Firstly, according to Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in WP/2328/2012, the Condition No.4E, which requires every member of the Labour Cooperative Society to be literate before the Society can make a bid for the contract, is arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, unconstitutional.

¶20

Mr. Patil, the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the RespondentState, submitted that this Condition No.4E has been inserted to encourage literacy amongst the labourers, particularly, those who form Labour Cooperative Societies.

¶21

Having considered the matter, we find that Condition No.4E unreasonably imposes the requirement that every member of the Cooperative Society should be literate. We see no nexus between the literacy of every member of a Cooperative Society to the object in granting contracts to the Labour Cooperative Societies, which is to promote their well being. In fact, we find from the Office Memorandum of the Government of India dated 23^rd January, 2007 that the Government has noted that the Labour Cooperative Societies are in disadvantageous position vizaviz private contractors in terms of financial resources, access to system etc. and, that, it is necessary to give supportive

2/5

Dixit

WP-2328-1410

policies and preferential treatment to some extent; the purpose being clearly to help weaker sections of the Society. In view of the aforesaid purpose, which is not disputed by the State Government, also we find that the differential treatment given out to the two classes of Societies i.e. those who have all members who are literate and those which have even one member who is not literate is not based on a rational criteria and is not an intelligible differential having any nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, to help weaker sections of the Society. In fact, it appears that the said Condition No.4E militates against the said object since it would not be unusual and, in fact, would be common that a Labour Co operative Society, which has been formed for the purpose of securing the well beings of its members, has atleast one member who is not literate. The term “literate” has not been defined in the G.R., but presumably the mere ability to make one signature is not being considered as the person being literate. Obviously, the expectation is that such a person should have ability to read and write documents etc. It is quite possible that one member of a Society may not be literate in this sense and it would be unreasonable to deprive such a Cooperative Society of its opportunity to make a bid for a contract. In the circumstances, the said Condition No.4E is found to be arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be set aside.

3/5

WP-2328-1410

Dixit

Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in WP/2328/2012, further submitted that earlier the Government did not require Labour Cooperative Societies to submit a tender, if the value of the contract is less than Rs.15 lacs. Now, by the new Conditions of Service, the Government has withdrawn that concession and is required every Labour Cooperative Society to make a bid for a contract even if the estimated value of the contract is less than Rs.15 lacs to make a bid by email. According to Mr. Joshi, the said change is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Mr. Patil, the learned AGP, submitted that withdrawal of the requirement that the Labour Cooperative Society need not submit a bid for a contract whose estimated value is less than Rs.15 lacs is, in fact, withdrawal of a concession and does not bring about any inequality between the Labour Cooperative Societies since it has been done uniformly. In fact, according to the learned A.G.P., the Government has found that though at one stage it was found that it was necessary to grant protection to and encourage the Labour Cooperative Societies by not requiring them to compete over the years, it has been found that such protection is now not necessary. In fact, the Government found that it is necessary to withdraw the concession so as to enhance the cause of the labour movement and to make a Labour Cooperative Society competent and financially sound.

4/5

Dixit

WP-2328-1410

In the circumstances of the case, we find that withdrawal of such a concession, in fact, restores equal treatment between the various Cooperative Societies, various contractors, who are all required to make a bid and are not exempted from such a bid. Contrary to the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners, the withdrawal of concession cannot be treated as the denial of any right much less the right to equal treatment. In these circumstances, we see no merit in the contention.

¶35

We note that the Government has continued the reservation of allotting 33% of the work of the Gram Panchayat to the Labour Cooperative Societies and the present challenge concerns the method of grant of such work to the Labour Cooperative Societies.

¶36

In the result, the Petitions are partly allowed. Clause 4E is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

[R.G. KETKAR, J.] [S.A. BOBDE, J.]

¶38

5/5

Kolhapur District Labours Co-Operative Societies Federation Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Rural Development and Irrigation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolhapur District Labours Co-Operative Societies Federation Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Rural Development and Irrigation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.S.G.P. Barnes Vs the Post and Telegraphs Central Govt. Employees Kranti Society and 9 Ors.

Shah Khushalchand Virji Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.

Mavji Virji Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.

Ravindra D. Hingwala Vs the Municipal Corporation of Geater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Shri. Amar Vamanrao Bhagat Vs Kailas Park Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

State Labour-Co-Operative Societies Federation Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.