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 unconstitutional and void being violative of Article 14 and the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243ZM of the Constitution . Consequently, the communication sent to each of the petitioners giving a panel of only three names of auditors & auditing firms to select any one of them from the said panel to audit the accounts of their respective Cooperative Societies is also illegal. In the view I have taken, it is unnecessary to examine the contention re. violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(c) & (g) of the Constitution . For the reasons stated above, I make the following order:
