F�9. In my opinion, the restriction imposed by the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act restricting the choice of a Co-operative Society to choose an Auditor or an Auditing firm from a panel of auditors & auditing firms, not exceeding ten, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution . It is also violative of the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243ZM of the Constitution as the said constitutional proviso provides for a panel for the State i.e. one panel for the State and also gives a choice to every co-operative Society to choose any of the eligible auditors or auditing firms from the said panel. Hence, providing separate panels of a few names to every Cooperative Society in the State as per the impugned proviso is violative of the constitutional proviso . Though under Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 , words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa, the context does not admit of such a interpretation of the constitutional proviso i.e. permitting plurality of panels, like giving separate panels of a few names to every Cooperative Society in the State as is done now. Any law which contravenes the Constitutional provisions is unconstitutional and void. Therefore, the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act which restricts the choice of a Co-operative Society to choose an auditor or an auditing firm from a panel, not exceeding ten, is
