Dismissed

Mann Sons Milk Producers Coop. Society Limited v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jan 2012CWP/11728/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash resolutions for member enrolment and zonal lists prepared by a cooperative milk union. The Court held that the union is not a public authority and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order staying the impugned resolution is vacated.

Mann Sons Milk Producers Coop. Society… — Cooperative Societies | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.11728 of 2011 1

¶2

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

The Mann Sons Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited

¶4

..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina

¶9

Present: Mr.I.S.Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl.A.G., Punjab

¶11

Mr.Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent no.6

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶14

Rajiv Narain Raina,J

¶15

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the relief of quashing resolutions dated 27.5.2011 (Annexure P-1) by which new members have been enrolled by the Administrator of the Faridkot District Cooperative Milk Producer Union Ltd., Faridkot (for short “the respondent-Union) and further to quash the Zonal Lists (Annexures P-2 to P-4) prepared by the respondentUnion.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paperbook.

¶17

Mr.Ashwani Prashar, learned counsel for respondent no.6 has raised a preliminary objection that the respondent-Union is a Cooperative Society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”)

¶18

CWP No.11728 of 2011 2

¶19

and its actions are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The State Government has no control over its functioning. It is not a statutory body nor is constituted by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature. It has also not been established by any notification issued by the appropriate government i.e. the State Government. It is a Cooperative Society simpliciter and its actions or inactions do not fall in the domain of writ jurisdiction. The impugned resolution dated 27.5.2011 (Annexure P-1) enrolling members of the Society may have been passed by the Administrator of the respondent-Union, but such a resolution is not open to be questioned in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Society does not fall under Article 12 of the Constitution nor falls under any "other authority” under Article 226. If 32 Milk Producers Cooperative Societies and 29 Progressive Dairy Members of the Milk Union, Faridkot have been enrolled in respondent-Union, the action is not challengable in the absence of statutory mandate in the Act or the Rules. The second prayer is for quashing the Zonal list prepared by the respondent-Union and for not holding elections of its Board of Directors as illegally enrolled members have been included in the voter list as well as the societies who have never supplied the required milk to the Milk Union since 1993 have been included in the zonal list in complete violation of bye-law 37(a)(V) (III) of the Byelaws of the respondent-Union, but these Bye-laws have no statutory force and remain beyond the purview of the writ court. The remedy, if any, would lie elsewhere.

¶20

Mr. Saggu, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is glaring irregularity in the procedure adopted by the respondent-Union and that it should be redressed by this Court. He relies on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.L.Arora and others vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others, 2009(4) RSJ 735 in which it has been held that the Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation and its District Cooperative Milk Producers Unions have to be regarded as instrumentalities of the State and would be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

¶21

CWP No.11728 of 2011 3

¶22

Constitution. The Division Bench of this Court was dealing with an issue of pay scale and revision thereof and a situation had arisen that the Federation itself had conceded the implementation of the pay scales equivalent to the one given by the State Government to its employees although from different dates. In the aforesaid case, the historical background of the formation of the Federation and Union was pressed. Actually, the work of dairy development in State of Punjab was once looked after by the Milk Commissioner, Punjab. Subsequently, the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited (PDDC) was formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The entire share of PDDC belonged to the State of Punjab. The employees working under the Milk Commissioner were also transferred to PDDC. After formation of the Federation, the entire assets and liabilities of PDDC including its employees were placed at the disposal of the Federation w.e.f. 9.4.1983. The share capital of the Federation was also contributed by the State of Punjab. It was also found that the functions of the Federation were controlled by the State of Punjab by appointing Administrator. The Court also found that on PDDC, there were government representatives such as Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh or his nominee, one nominee from the financing agency, one nominee from the National Dairy Development Board, one nominee from the Federation and three nominees of the Government. On that count, the Division Bench held on the facts presented the Federation to be amenable to writ jurisdiction.

¶23

Mr.Saggu, learned counsel further places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala v. T.A. Kuttappan and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2378 . This was a case where the Administrator appointed, subject to control of Registrar Cooperative Societies, was expected to carry on the day to day functioning of the Society and see that elections are conducted and a new Committee is formed in accordance with the Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society. It was held that the Administrator could not make wholesale enrollment of new members. The Court proceeded without there being any objection as to

¶24

CWP No.11728 of 2011 4

¶25

maintainability of the action brought under judicial review. The case is, therefore, distinguishable.

¶26

Mr. Saggu, learned counsel also relies upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.Santharaj and another v. M.L.Nagaraja and others, AIR 1997 SC 2925 on the issue of enrolment of new members and that where a Managing Committee is superseded, the appointed Administrator should not enter into the domain of enrolling new members where no such power is vested or granted by statute. This is also not a case where foundational facts as to the inter-connection and inter play between the Cooperative Society and the State Government was under consideration.

¶27

On the other hand, Mr.Ashwani Prashar, learned counsel for respondent no.6 has relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1975 (1) SLR 605 (S.C) . He also relies on several decisions of this Court in the following cases to submit tghat the petition deserves to be dissmissed for want of maintainability:-

¶28

(i)Prem Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.10806 of 2006 decided on 5.9.2007);

¶29

(ii)Gurmej Singh vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others (CWP No.16478 of 1999 decided on 19.9.2007);

¶30

(iii)Pardeep Kaur and others vs. The Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank

¶31

Ltd. And others (CWP No.2486 of 1987).

¶32

Mr.Prashar, learned counsel further submits that merely because the Registrar Cooperative Societies has approved the bye-laws would not give them statutory flavour. On facts, Mr. Prashar, learned counsel points out from paragraph 4 of his written statement that the petitioner-Society falls in Zone 6 of the 5th respondent. The qualifications required for contesting the election to the Board of Directors of the Union are mentioned in Bye-law 37 of the Bye-laws of the Union are not met on facts. The Bye-law reads as under:

¶33

“The Society should not have supplied milk less than 30000 kgs of milk annually during the last 3 years prior to the election.”

¶34

CWP No.11728 of 2011 5

¶35

However, in the case of the petitioner-Society during the last three years, the milk poured by the petitioner-Society in the Milk Union is less than 30000 kgs every year. Learned counsel submits that in this way, the petitioner-society is not even eligible to contest the elections of the Board of Directors of respondent no.5. He submits that this petition has been filed with a view to stall the election process. It is detrimental to the cause of other 111 societies including 29 Progressive farmers from zone 13.

¶36

I have perused the short reply filed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The State has taken the stand that the writ is premature as the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab has already invited objections on the formation of zones vide notice dated 23.6.2011 (Annexure P-15) and the last date of filing objection to the formation of zone, as per the notice was 13.7.2011, but the petitioner, without filing any objection in compliance of the notice preferred to file the instant writ petition much prior to the last date of receiving objections. It is also stated that the petitioner could have its remedies before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab.

¶37

In view of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court, as noticed here-in-above, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent-Faridkot District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. is not a public authority nor is it amenable to writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. The interim order dated 18.7.2011 staying the operation of the impugned resolution (Annexure P-1) would stand vacated. The petitioner is left to pursue its remedy before the appropriate forum, if advised, in accordance with law.

¶38

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

¶39

27.1.2012 MFK

¶40

CWP No.11728 of 2011 6

Mann Sons Milk Producers Coop. Society Limited v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mann Sons Milk Producers Coop. Society Limited v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Municipal Corporation Amritsar Vs Natha Singh etc.

Lovely Pasricha & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

S. P. Gupta Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

President Chandigarh LIC Employees/Pensioners Vs Secretary, Coop. Union Teritory Chd. & Ors.

Malkit Singh Vs the Polc Patiala and Ors.

Parveen Chopra Vs State of Punjab and Ors.