Chattisgarh High Court
Komal Lal Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 December, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 4712 of 2016
Komal Lal Patel S/o Jhaduram Patel, Aged About 60 Years R/o
Santoshi Nagar, Near Durga Mandir, Durgapara, Raipur
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Pashudhan Vikas, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2. The Registrar, Co- Operative Societies, Chhattisgarh H. Q.
Head Of The Department Building, Block - B, Second And Third
Floor, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation, Through Its
Managing Director, Urla, Post B M Y Charouda, District Durg
Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate
Respondents : Mr. Avinash K Mishra, PL.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
15.12.2021
1. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the issue
involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by
this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 5672/2014 (P.N. Upadhyay Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh & Others) on 15.12.2015, in which this Court
has dismissed the writ petitions and held as under :-
"21. The principle of law that emerges from the
aforesaid decisions is that the rule making function of
the Registrar under Section 55 of the Act is legislative
in character duly delegated to him by the Act of
1960. Now the question would be scope of
interference by this Court in the legislative power
exercised by the Registrar by passing an order
impugned laying down age of superannuation of Co-
operative servants to be 62 years subject to approval
by the Board of Directors of the concerned Co-
operative Society in view of Section 31 of the Act of
1960.
22. Scope of interference in the legislative function
has been pointed out by the Supreme Court
authoritively in the matter of Sundarjas Kanyalal
Bhathija and others v. The Collector, Thane,
Maharashtra 5 AIR 1990 SC 261, following statement
of law of the report is relevant as under:-
"23...........It must be noted that the function
of the government in establishing a Corporation
under the Act is neither executive not
administrative. Counsel for the appellants was
right in his submission that it is legislative
process indeed. No judicial duty is laid on the
Government in discharge of the statutory duties.
The only question to be examined is whether the
statutory provisions have been complied with. It
they are complied with, then, the Court could say
no more. In the present case the government did
publish the proposal by a draft notification and
also considered the representations received. It
was only thereafter, a decision was taken to
exclude Ulhasnagar for the time being. That
decision became final when it was notified under
Section 3(2). The Court cannot sit in judgment
over such decision. It cannot lay down norms for
the exercise of that power. It cannot substitute
even "its juster will for theirs".
Thus, the scope of interference in the legislative
function is extremely limited and only question to be
examined while dealing with challenge to the
legislative function is whether statutory provisions
have been complied with or not.
23. The determination of the nature of function
exercised by the Registrar under Section 55 of the Act
and scope of interference by this Court in legislative
function in jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India brings me back to the question
as to whether the petitioners have made out a case
for interference in the order passed by Registrar, Co-
operative Society dated 30.08.2013. The petitioner
has simply pleaded that the order of the Registrar
enhancing the age of superannuation of the co-
operative servant from 60 to 62 years making the
said enhancement subject to approval of the Board of
Directors is illegal. The petitioners have neither
pleaded nor established that any statutory provisions
have not been complied with or violated by the
Registrar while exercising the power under Section
55(1) of the Act of 1960, as held by the Supreme
Court in the matter of Sundarjas (Supra). Therefore,
the condition imposed by the Registrar making the
enhancement of age of superannuation subject to
approval of the Board of Directors is in accordance
with law and it cannot be held to be illegal merely
because it does not suit to the interest of the
petitioners.
24. There is an additional reason for upholding the
order of Registrar. The Registrar passed the impugned
order on 30.08.2013, thereafter, the general body of
respondent No.3 in its meeting dated 04.03.2014
considered the order of the Registrar and decided to
maintain the age of retirement as it is. It is settled
law that alteration in the age of retirement by the
employers is a matter of executive policy and is
permissible for sufficient and cogent reasons as has
been held by the Supreme Court in paragraph 45 of
the judgment in the case of M. P. Vidyut Karmachari
Sangh v. M. P. Electricity Board 6 (2004) 9 SCC 755,
relying on K. Nagaraj v. State of A. P. (1985) 1 SCC
523, Osmania University v. V. S. Muthurangam 8
(1997) 10 SCC 741, L. Lakshmana Rao v. State of
Karnataka (1976) 2 SCC 502 and Chandra Singh v.
State Rajasthan 2003 (6) SCC 545.
25. The determination of above-stated question
brings me to next question as to whether the order
passed by respondent-Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari
Dugdha Mahasangh Maryadit resolving and deciding
to maintain the age of superannuation from 60 is
justified ?
26. Respondent-Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Dugdha
Mahasangh Maryadit is a body corporate duly
established and constituted under Section 31 of the
Act of 1960, has considered the order of the
Registrar, Co-operative Societies in its proper
prospective and has clearly reached into conclusion
that on account of excessive and rising establishment
expenses Dugdha Mahasandh decided to maintain
the age of superannuation of the employees working
in their Mahasandh to 60 years as it is and not to
enhance the age of superannuation to be 62 years. It
has already been held in foregoing paragraph and
that enhancement in age of retirement is a matter of
Executive policy and the petitioners have failed to
demonstrate the arbitrariness and illegality in the
order of the Registrar and Dugdha Mahasangh passed
in this regard. I do not see any illegality either in the
order of the Registrar or in the order rejecting
representations, warranting interference by this Court
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India.
27. As a fall out and consequence of the aforesaid
discussion, all the writ petitions being without
substance are liable to be and are hereby dismissed
but without imposition of cost(s)."
2. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in line with
the order passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 5672/2014 (P.N. Upadhyay
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Santosh
