Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Omitted by Act 5 of 1989. working thereof evidenced by electoral process. Chandeshwar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 159 (FB.) :1987 BRLJ 55 :AIR 1987 Pat 208. Co-operative Societies Act cannot be challenged on the ground that the protection afforded by Article 31 A (1)(c) was not available to co-operative societies. Protection of Article 31 (1) (c) cannot be said to be not available on the ground that interest of co-operative,society may not necessarily be in public interest. Daman .Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 973. Power to order amalgamation of a co-operative society of which an individual is a member, with another society cannot Be remotely held to offend the dignity of a human being so as to offend the basic structure of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 20ibid.'.. '' An exemption granted in favour of all buildings belonging to Co-operative societies from the provisions of Rent Control Laws cannot be said to be discriminatory and violative of Article 140 of Constitution of India. S.M. Mahendra vs. State ofTamil Nadu, AIR 1985 SC 270 : (1985) 1 SCC 395. In a field where both Central and State legislation is envisaged under the constitution, the fact of legislation by Parliament does not necessarily mean that the field has become occupied, thereby ousting the State Legislature's competence to pass any law in respect of the matter. Both Central and State Acts can operate in the same field if they are. not found to be repugnant or inconsistent with each other. Mohan Mishra vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (2) PLJR 171. , There can be no fixed connotation in regard to co-operative societies. The concept of co-operation as enshrined in the parent Act is a concept derived from the statute and not from the constitution. The picture that has emerged by the Statute can always be altered by statute by the law making body. It cannot be contended that the frame work of the co-operative ·societies is a. basic structure of the. Constitution and are, therefore, unalterable by the State legislature. If the fundamental of co-operative laws are derived from State legislation, it cannot be doubted for a· moment that the State legislature has the jurisdiction to alter the nomenclature of the co-operative societies. The. history of co-operative legislation itself shows that there is no fixed connotation of co-operative societies. It is well known that initially a cooperative society was formed on the basis of co-operation of individuals. The next . . . step was the concept of incorporation of co-operative societies, that brought in the State. With the State having come in the picture, the concept relating to charge of liability was introduced. With the power of the legislature to make laws, care the provision of liability of the members. Initially, the liability of members was unlimited. Then came the concept of liability limited by shares. Co-operative Societies Act now recognises limited liability of co-operative societies as well as unlimited liability of· co-operative societies. Promotion of co-operative societies has now been included in the directive principles of the Constitution. The State have been enjoined to act in a manner so as to promote the concept of co- operation. It would thus be seen that there is no fixed, concept in regard to the co-operative societies. The concept has been changing from time to time. In that view of the matter, one cannot jusifiably contend that there was fixed notions guiding co-operative societies. But, by this, it should not be misunderstood that the democratic principles' may be completely waived or done away within the matter of functions of co-operative societies. It is, therefore, unsound at the threshold to contend that the amendments are annihilative 2] Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 [Sec. 1 Sec. 2 ] Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 [3 of the concept of co-operative societies. The right of voluntary and autonomous asscciation or the right to democratic control and self management or the right to equality is managing the affairs of society has not been annihilated by the Ordinances. They have only been placed within chartered channels consistent with public interest. The conclusion therefore, is that the Ordinances do not lack legislative competency. They are clearly enactments falling within item 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. They do not fall within item 43 of List I. Competencewise they are valid pieces of legislation. Sheetal Prasad Gupta vs. State of Bihar, (1990) 1 BLJ 493 (FB). Legal fictions are only for a definite purpose and they are limited to the purpose for which they are created and should not be extended beyond the legitimate field. 3engal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661. Where the Statute enacts that something is to be deemed to exist or some status be deemed to have been acquired which would not otherwise have been so, full effect must be given to the fiction but not so as to extend it beyond the purpose for which it was created. Bindesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1995 (1) PLJR 86; State of Travancore-cochin vs. S. V.C.F., AIR 1953 sc333.. Where the language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning no question of construction or interpretation of the provision arises, for the State speaks for itself. State of U.P. vs. Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963 SC 946; Ramsakha Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1992 (2) PLJR 598. The removal from Membership of Managing Committee of Co-operative society on ground of default in repayment of loan within the prescribed period is contemplated under the Rules. Jai Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 P & H 67. The prescribed procedure under the.Act must be strictly followed in case of expulsion of a Member, and notice to show cause must also be given. Smt. Sarla Devi vs. Shailesh, AIR 1996 Bom 98. Restrictions imposed by Registrar, Co-operative, on Co-operative Societies, requiring purchases of machinery to be made through Regional Agro Industries Development Co- operative Ltd. are justifiable, when in public interest George Kokkattummdayil vs. Joint Registrar, AIR 1996 Ker 26. Review.--Power of review has been given only to Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and is vested in State Government under the Assam Act. C.B.K. Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd.: vs. State of Assam, AIR 1996 Gau 23. Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and others cannot be in addition to total strength of Board of Directors provided Linder law. H.L. Roche vs. Citizen Co-operative Bank, Ltd. AIR 1996 Bom. 126. Scope.--Societies registered under this Act cannot claim priorities over those societies registered under 1996 Act in the matter of settlement of Jalkars. Simri Bakhtiarpur Prakhand Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, 2005(3)PLJR68.]