Delhi High Court
Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd. vs Uoi & Anr. on 17 September, 2008
Author: Vikramajit Sen
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)4033/2007 & CM 7598/2007
# KRISHAK BHARTI ...Petitioner through
! CO-OPERATIVE LTD. Mr.V.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Neeraj Malhotra and
Mr. Om Prakash, Advs.
-versus-
$ UOI & ANR. ...Respondent through
^ Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG with
Ms. Manisha Dhir, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 10th September, 2008
% Date of Decision : 17th September, 2008
CORAM:
* HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the Judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
JUDGMENT
1. In this Writ Petition it has, inter alia, been prayed
that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the Order dated
6.12.2006 of the Government of India (GOI) directing the
repatriation to the GOI of equity held by it in the
Petitioner Society, namely, Krishak Bharti Co-operative
Limited (KRIBHCO). It is necessary to reproduce the said
Order, inter alia, to demonstrate that it fails altogether to
address or adumbrate the nature of the public interest
which it endeavours to protect or project:-
WHEREAS the Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd.
(KRIBHCO), a Multi-state Cooperative Society
registered under the Multi-State Cooperative
Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) and is a fertilizer
production unit in the Cooperative Sector and as
per item 5 of Schedule II to Rule 3 of the
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules
is under the administrative responsibility of the
Department of Fertilizers;
AND WHEREAS the Government of India is a
member and a majority shareholder in the said
KRIBHCO;
AND WHEREAS the said KRIBHCO, pursuant to
the amendment to its Bye-Law No.8, unilaterally
and without either the approval or concurrence
of the Government of India, has been repatriating
the Government of India equity held in the said
Society, an Act which has been expressly being
objected to by the Department of Fertilizers;
AND WHEREAS the matter regarding the
amendment of Bye-Laws by the KRIBHCO and
the unilateral repatriation of GOI equity is under
examination by the competent authority in the
Government of India;
AND WHEREAS inspite of the refusal of the
Department to accept the unilateral repatriation
of GOI equity and consequent return of the
cheques received in this regard to the KRIBHCO,
the said Society has been persisting with the
attempts for repatriation of GOI equity and the
Central Government is satisfied that in public
interest and in order to secure proper
management of the business of the said
KRIBHCO, it is necessary to issue a direction to
the said Society;
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers
vested under section 122 of the Multi-State
Cooperative Societies Act, the Central
Government, hereby directs that the KRIBHCO
shall cease forthwith its attempts to repatriate
GOI equity held in the said Society and desist
from bringing any resolution/agenda item in the
Board/General Body proposing to enable the
Society or its Management for repatriation of
GOI equity without the specific written and
prior approval of the Department of Fertilizers;
Any violation of the above directive shall
render the KRIBHCO liable to the action as
specified under section 123 of the MSCS Act.
2. The Petitioner asserts that upon the enactment of
the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short
„MSCS Act‟), the Petitioner had proposed to amend its
existing Bye-laws Numbers 8 and 29(ii) allegedly to
make it fall in line with the provisions of the said
statute. It appears that on 7.9.2002 the Board of KRIBHCO
had approved these amendments. The earlier, as well as
the current provisions, are reproduced in juxtaposition:-
Previous Bye-law Bye-law after amendment
8. KRIBHCO may retire 8. (a) KRIBHCO shall
partially or fully the shares quarterly retire the shares
held by the Government of held by the members other
India, the National Cooperative than cooperatives like
Development Corporation, Government of India, the
IFFCO and the Govt. National Cooperative
Organisations, at such time Development Corporation and
and in such manner as may be public Financing
agreed upon between it and Institutions to the extent
the Government of that the cooperative
India/National Cooperative members subscribe to the
Development equity of KRIBHCO in
Corporation/IFFCO and the order to facilitate greater
Govt. Organisations as the participation and
case may be. representation of
29 (ii) Amendment or repeal of cooperative members in
any existing Bye-law or KRIBHCO.
enactment of any new Bye-laws 30 (ii) Amendment or repeal
provided that all such of any existing Bye-law or
amendment(s) will require the enactment of any new Bye-
approval of the Government of laws in accordance with the
India and IFFCO until such procedure prescribed in
time as the Share Capital the Act and the Rules made
subscribed by the Government thereunder;
of India and IFFCO is fully
retired;
3. By Notice dated 13.9.2002, under Bye-law 32, the
Agenda of the 22nd Annual General Body Meeting (AGM)
was circulated to the Members/Delegates of KRIBHCO of
which Item (VII) was "Consideration of Amendment to the
Bye-laws of the Society". The Notes in respect of this
Agenda Item are as follows:
Further, as per the laid down principles of
law, the Bye-laws are subservient to the Act and
therefore, wherever the provisions of the Bye-
laws are in conflict or repugnant to the
provisions of the Act, the same shall not be
applicable and the Act shall prevail. According
to Section 126 of the MSCS Act, 2002, KRIBHCO
would be deemed to be registered under the
new Act and Bye-laws of KRIBHCO shall, in so
far as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of the new Act, or the Rules, continue
to be in force until altered and rescinded.
Therefore, the Bye-laws of KRIBHCO to the
extent they are inconsistent with the new Act
would be inoperative and void and in their place
the provisions of MSCS Act, 2002 would be
legally in force.
In view of the above, certain clauses of the
existing Bye-laws which are not in consonance
with MSCS Act, 2002 require amendment. It is,
therefore, proposed to make suitable changes in
some of these clauses of the existing Bye-laws
which require immediate attention, to bring them in
conformity with the provision of the MSCS Act, 2002.
4. In regard to Item (VII) the following Resolution was
passed:-
"RESOLVED THAT the proposed amendments to
the existing Bye-laws of KRIBHCO, as given at
Annexure-I, be and are hereby approved."
"RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the Managing
Director be and is hereby authorised to take
further necessary action in the matter".
5. Annexure-10 to the Petition reveals that in total there
were 589 delegates in the Multi-State Cooperative Society
and that 512 delegates attended the 22nd AGM of KRIBHCO;
and that the said amendments to the Bye-laws were
carried unanimously. Thereupon, a request was made to
the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, New Delhi,
requesting him to incorporate the proposed amendments to
the Bye-laws of KRIBHCO in terms of the Order dated
7.10.2002, which was accompanied by a Certificate under
Section 11(4)(f) of MSCS Act. Apart from senior IAS
officers representing sundry Co-operative Banks, Shri Hari
Pal had attended the said AGM as the Nominee of the
GOI, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers. The Resolutions
extracted above were duly confirmed at the succeeding
23rd AGM of KRIBHCO held on 31.7.2003, in which the
GOI was, once again represented by its Nominee Shri
Hari Pal. The Central Registrar of Cooperative accorded
registration to these amendments on 26.12.2002.
6. The contention of Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the amendments were
duly and legally passed at the 22nd AGM. The MSCS Act
prescribes in Section 11(2) that amendment to the Bye-
laws of a Multi-State Co-operative Society shall be made
by a Resolution passed by a two-third majority of the
members present and voting at General Meeting of the
Society. It has not been argued that if the Bye-laws
are irreconcilable with or are contrary to the statute,
they would be liable to be struck down as ultra vires
the MSCS Act. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional
Solicitor General (ASG), however, contends to the contrary.
Bye-law 29 (ii) contains the provisions regulating the
procedure for amendments to the Bye-laws in these words:-
29. The following, among other matters, shall be
dealt with by the General Body:
..
(ii) Amendment or repeal of any existing Bye-law
or enactment of any new Bye-laws provided that
all such amendment(s) will require the approval
of the Government of India and IFFCO until such
time as the Share Capital subscribed by the
Government of India and IFFCO is fully retired;
7. The learned ASG has argued that Bye-law 29(ii)
necessarily postulates the written approval of the GOI,
if not the prior written approval. On this point, we are
in no manner of doubt that there is no scope for
introducing the word „prior‟ into the Bye-laws as also
the requirement of written approval. It is trite that
approval of any issue can be conveyed by the concerned
or relevant party in myriad ways , one of the most
efficacious of which would be by the conduct of the
approving party. The subject amendment was first
discussed in the KRIBHCO Board and was followed-up
by the unanimous Resolution to this effect by the
General Body in its 22nd AGM. Section 11 of the
MSCS Act immediately came into play. Prior notice of
the proposed amendment was duly given. It is indeed
significant that the amendment was carried
unanimously. Till this stage, therefore, rather than there
being even a hint of opposition, there was, in fact,
unanimous support for the amendment in the
Respondents‟ ranks. The GOI was duty-bound and
obligated to instruct its Nominee to oppose the
amendment, in case it was of this opinion. Although
the investment made by the GOI was as high as sixty
per cent of the entire stock of KRIBHCO, in terms
of MSCS Act as well as the Bye-laws of KRIBHCO, its
voting strength was on parity with that of any other
member. Nevertheless, it was essential for the
Government Nominee/Delegate to have recorded opposition
to the proposed amendment by entering a dissenting
vote, especially since it had not previously conveyed its
opposition to the amendment in response to the
Agenda of the 22nd AGM. Any person possessing of
knowledge or experience in the functioning of a
Company or a Society would not have neglected in
placing its opposition to the amendment, in writing, at
the very earliest.
8. In this regard, the following observations of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the Co-operative Central Bank
Ltd. -vs- Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh,
1969(2) SCC 43 leaves no room for debate:
10. We are unable to accept the
submission that the bye-laws of a co-
operative society framed in pursuance of
the provisions of the Act can be held
to be law or to have the force of
law. It has no doubt been held that, if
a statute gives power to a Government or
other authority to make rules, the rules
so framed have the force of statute and
are to be deemed to be incorporated as
a part of the statute. That principle,
however, does not apply to bye-laws of
the nature that a co-operative society is
empowered by the Act to make. The
bye-laws that are contemplated by the
Act can be merely those which govern
the internal management, business or
administration of a society. They may be
binding between the persons affected by
them, but they do not have the force
of a statute. In respect of bye-laws
laying down conditions of service of the
employees of a society, the bye-laws
would be binding between the society
and the employees just in the same
manner as conditions of service laid down
by contract between the parties. In fact,
after such bye-laws laying down the
conditions of service are made and any
person enters the employment of a society,
those conditions of service will have to
be treated as conditions accepted by the
employee when entering the service and
will thus bind him like conditions of
service specifically forming part of the
contract of service. The bye-laws that
can be framed by a society under the Act
are similar in nature to the Articles of
Association of a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act and such articles
of Association have never been held to
have the force of law.
9. On the strength of this Judgment, a Division Bench
of this Court in Jagjit Singh Sangwan -vs- Union of India,
1996 (36) DRJ(DB) has held that the Bye-laws of a Co-
operative Society have the purpose of regulating its
internal management and that these Bye-laws do not have
the force of law. It was further opined that Article 226
is not available for securing enforcement of the Bye-laws
of a Co-operative Society. The dealings between the
members or shareholders of a society governed by the
MSCS Act, regardless of whether it is the GOI which is
the one concerned, falls in the realm of contract.
10. So far as the conduct of the Government is
concerned, it had, on several previous occasions, encashed
payments received from KRIBHCO towards redemption of
its shares without any demur. The following Table shows
that as much as Rupees 22.31 crores had been returned
to the Government by KRIBHCO, by means of seven cheques:-
11. Shri Hari Pal had addressed a Letter dated 14.1.2004 on
behalf of the GOI, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers,
Department of Fertilizers to the Managing Director of
KRIBHCO, forwarding therewith Share Certificate No.18
amounting to Rupees 25 crores for making endorsement of
repatriation of GOI equity by KRIBHCO to the tune of Rupees
2.80 crores, reducing it to Rupees 22.20 crores. Thereafter, by
Letter dated 22.1.2004, Shri Hari Pal acknowledged receipt of
Rupees 28 lacs towards retirement of GOI equity in KRIBHCO,
further requesting amendment to Share Certificate No.18,
showing its reduced value to Rupees 21.71 crores. Letter dated
31.3.2004 is of similar character acknowledging that Share
Certificate No.18 is reduced to Rupees 21.71 crores.
12. It is apparent that the GOI has now endeavoured to refund
or return these sums, in our view, because of a reversal of
thinking. This was not a consequence of the so-called unilateral
action of KRIBHCO or for the reason that the approval of the
Government to the amendments had not been given at any prior
stage, as the learned ASG now contends. In our view, the
principles of estoppel clearly militate against the argument
raised on behalf of the GOI. Black‟s Law Dictionary defines
estoppel as a "bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or
right that contradicts what one has done before". As we have
already mentioned, the GOI could have recorded and/or
articulated its opposition to the amendment in immediate
response to the Agenda of the 22nd AGM, or by recording its
dissent at the 22nd AGM, or by declining to accept or encash the
repatriated or retired equity. Our conclusion is that the GOI
had agreed or approved of the subject amendment in terms of
the Bye-law 29. One of the main reasons for this tact consent
must have been a consequence of the avowed policy, in
consonance with the global ethos of the Co-operative
Movement, which is to encourage the widest participation of the
parties concerned by means of membership of the Co-operative
Society concerned and that such entities should be self
governing, as contemplated in the Manchester Declaration
(infra).
13. We are fully mindful that the writ Court should always be
reluctant in interfering with a policy devised by the Government
unless it is wholly unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, or if
it is manifest that the subject policy is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. This position has been reiterated in
Balco Employees‟ Union (Regd.) -vs- Union of India, (2002) 2
SCC 333 where their Lordships opined - "In a democracy, it is
the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own
policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in
focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may
result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any
illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same
is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change
cannot per se be interfered with by the Court". In similar vein,
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has enunciated in State of Orissa -
vs- Gopinath Dash, JT 2005 (10) 484 that - "The policy decision
must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which
policy should be adopted after considering all the points from
different angles. In matter of policy decision or exercise of
discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of
fundamental right is now shown courts will have no occasion to
interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own
judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In
assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the
court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from
that of the Government". In Tata Cellular -vs- Union of India,
(1994) 6 SCC 651, while delineating the parameters of
Wednesubry unreasonableness, their Lordships laid down that
the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to
control by judicial review can be classified are illegality, or
irrationality, and/or procedural impropriety.
14. In our opinion, the ostensible stand taken on behalf of the
GOI in the present case is, in fact, contrary to the Policy
preferred and prescribed by the GOI, which is to be found in the
First Schedule to the MSCS Act. These tenets have been
borrowed verbatim from the Declaration of the Manchester
International Co-operative Congress, 1995. Paragraph 4.1 of the
National Policy on Co-operatives clarifies that - "The ideology of
cooperatives is based on the principles of self-help, self-
responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity". The
said Policy, in its paragraphs 7 (i) and (vi), inter alia, reads
thus:-
7(i) While upholding the values and principles of
cooperation, its recognizes the cooperatives as
autonomous associations of persons, united
voluntarily to meet their common economic, social
and cultural needs and aspirations through jointly
owned and democratically controlled enterprises.
...
(vi) accepts the need to phase out its share
holdings/equity participation in the cooperatives. It
shall, however, endeavour and extend appropriate
support for improving financial viability and resource
mobilization by harnessing local savings and adequate
refinance facility, and to the possible extent providing
a policy framework to ensure that there is no
discrimination against the cooperatives in the matter
relating to resource mobilisation to attain financial
viability. The cooperatives shall be enabled to set up
holding companies/subsidiaries, enter into strategic
partnership, venture into futuristic areas like
insurance, food processing and information
technology etc. and shall be independent to take the
financial decisions in the interest of the members and
in furtherance of their stated objects;
15. Paragraph 2.3 of the Ninth Report of the Standing
Committee on Petroleum and Chemicals (1999-2000) contains
a Recommendation that the Government should initiate
action for transferring more capital to co-operatives in a
phased manner. The following paragraphs are topical and
require reproduction:-
2.9 The Committee note that as against authorised
share capital of Rs.500 crore of KRIBHCO, the
paid-up capital was Rs.484.25 crore as on 31st
March, 2000. The Committee also note that majority
of shares in KRIBHCO are being held by the
Government. Out of Rs.484.25 crores paid-up
capital as much as Rs.328 crore are held by
Government. The Standing Committee on Petroleum
& Chemicals (1994-95), 10th Lok Sabha had also
examined the matter and in their 13th Report on
IFFCO and KRIBHCO, presented to the Parliament
on March, 1995, had recommended that the
Government should transfer more share capital to
cooperatives in a phased manner for making
IFFCO and KRIBHCO real cooperatives in
character. However, during the course of
examination the Committee found that the desired
transfer of equity in KRIBHCO has not taken
place. During the last six years the Committee
found that share of government has come down
from 71.94% to 67.73% whereas share of
cooperatives has marginally increased from 6.74% to
12.23%. The Committee have been informed that since
the cooperatives are not financially strong, these are
not able to enrol themselves as members. The
Committee have also been informed that still there
was a scope for small cooperatives to participate
in equity of KRIBHCO since there was a gap of
Rs.15.75 crore between authorised share capital and
paid-up share capital of KRIBHCO.
2.10 The Committee have been informed that in
order to encourage small societies to become
members of KRIBHCO, Government have allowed
KRIBHCO to reduce the face value of its share
from Rs.20,000 to Rs.10,000 per share and also to
convert 500 shares of face value of Rs.1 lakh per
share into 5000 shares of face value of Rs.10,000
per share. The Committee have also been informed
that direct transfer of share from Government to
Cooperatives is not allowed under Multi-State
Cooperatives Act, 1984. The Committee would like to
emphasise that the thrust of their
recommendation is to impart real Cooperative
character to KRIBHCO and it can be done if
Government‟s equity is regularly decreased with
corresponding increase in the equity held by
Cooperative Societies. Government should devise
the ways and means to achieve this objective,
whether through amendment to MSCS Act, 1984 or
amending the bye-laws. However, as an immediate
measure, KRIBHCO should initiate action such as
special drive to increase its membership
substantially so that the remaining equity of
Rs.15.75 cores is contributed by Cooperative
Societies within a targeted period say of two
years. Government should extend all necessary help
expeditiously in this regard. The DOF should act
as a Nodal agency and liaise with various agencies
and get suitable guidelines issued to banks/district
cooperative credit banks to give loans to farmers for
acquiring membership of the Society.
16. It appears plain to us that it was by way of the
implementation of this Policy that the entire equity invested
by the GOI in Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited
(IFFCO) has been retired or repatriated. In this case, it will
also be relevant to mention that IFFCO Bye-laws are identical
in vital contents to those of KRIBHCO. As in the case of
KRIBHCO, the GOI had not objected to the amendment of
the Bye-laws which amendments have the avowed purpose
of facilitating the smooth as well as convenient retirement
and return of the investment of the GOI in the said Cooperative
Society, linked to a corresponding increase in its membership.
Indubitably, there is substance in the argument advanced
by Mr. V.P. Singh that if different treatment is to be
accorded by the GOI to IFFCO and KRIBHCO, a violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution would inexorably occur. The
retirement of GOI equity was effected after amendments
carried out in the Bye-laws of IFFCO, which are evidently
similar to those effected in KRIBHCO from a perusal of this
Table:-
Previous Bye-law Bye-law after amendment
6. IFFCO may retire the shares 6. IFFCO shall quarterly retire
held by the Government of the shares held by the non co-
India, National Cooperative operative members like
Development Corporation and Government of India, and
Public Financing Institutions at Public Financing Institutions to
such time and in such manner the extent that the cooperative
as may be agreed upon members subscribe to the
between it and the equity of IFFCO in order to
Government of India/National facilitate greater participation
Cooperative Development and representation of
Corporation/Public Financing cooperative members in
Institutions, as the case may IFFCO.
be.
17. We have already referred to the position adopted by the
GOI in treating the repatriation of GOI equity in KRIBHCO as a
unilateral action of the latter. This stance had been articulated
in the letter dated 7.9.2006 of the Department of Fertilizers
addressed to KRIBHCO wherein the GOI had sought to invoke
the unamended Bye-law 29 (ii), and had asserted that "the
certificate given by the Presiding Authority was without any
approval from the Central Government". In the concluding
paragraph of the said letter it has been stated that "pending
receipt of the advice from the Law Ministry and subsequent
Resolution of the whole issue, no more unilateral repatriation of
Government equity may be resorted to by Kribhco. ...." A
perusal of Letter dated 2.12.2002, addressed by the Chief
Director (Coop) to the Joint Secretary, Department of
Fertilizers, supports the argument that the amendment, in fact,
has the tacit approval of the GOI. In the letter the Joint
Secretary was reminded of the proposed amendments in the
Bye-laws received from IFFCO. Thereafter, the amendment
proposals in the Bye-laws of KRIBHCO were enclosed for the
comments. Indeed, no response to either of the amendments
was made.
18. It is indeed surprising that the Respondent/UOI has
obdurately opposed this Petition despite the written opinion of
the learned Attorney General to the effect that the unamended
Clause 27(ii) does not envisage prior approval in writing; that
the Government had agreed to the amendment for the reason
that had it opposed it, the amendment would not have obtained
the requisite two-third majority; that the Registration Certificate
cannot be cancelled by the Registrar in the absence of any
express provision; that the direction contemplated by the GOI to
IFFCO to amend the Bye-laws so as to restore status-quo ante
the amendment would be violative of Section 11(2) of the MSCS
Act. The GOI has also attempted to argue contrary to the letter
dated 5.2.2007 of the Additional Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture to the effect that there was no compelling or
convincing reason to amend Section 35(2) of the MSCS Act
which prescribes that the redemption of shares shall be on the
face value of the shares. The Note appended to this Letter
renders the Counter-Affidavit totally irreconcilable with the
policy of the GOI in respect of Co-operative Societies as well as
to the written opinion of the learned Attorney General which is
fully binding on Respondents.
19. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned ASG, has vehemently argued
that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had incorrectly
permitted the amendment to the Bye-laws and, therefore, is
duty-bound to reverse it and thereby restore status quo ante.
We cannot countenance this argument in view of the
pronouncement in H.C. Suman -vs- Rehabilitation Ministry
Employees‟ Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., New
Delhi, (1991) 4 SCC 485 which lays down that "a quasi judicial
order once passed and having become final cannot be reviewed
by the authority passing that order unless the power of review
has been specifically conferred". Accordingly, upon the Central
Registrar of Cooperative Societies according registration to the
amendments, it had become functus officio and that Order could
not thereafter be reviewed by it. It is indeed significant that
despite the passage of considerable time, the Government of
India has not initiated legal proceedings to reverse or nullify the
Registration, assuming that this was possible in law.
20. The learned ASG has sought to convince us that Bye-law
8 (a) prohibited the retirement of shares held by the GOI. We
are unable to accede to his argument. The Bye-law clearly
envisages that KRIBHCO can retire, each quarter, the shares
held by the GOI, the NCDC and the Public Finances Institutions
to the extent that the Co-operative Members make a
corresponding subscription. However, Bye-law 8(a) does not
empower KRIBHCO to retire the shares held by „Cooperative‟ in
contradistinction to the GOI, NCDC and the Public Financing
Institutions. The use of the words "other than" leaves no room
for debate.
21. For these manifold reasons, we find no merit in the
opposition of the Respondents to the Writ Petition. We
accordingly quash the impugned Order dated 6.12.2006 issued
by Respondent No.1, being untenable in law. The GOI cannot
but act in compliance with the extant Bye-laws of KRIBHCO, and
especially Section 35 of the MSCS Act.
22. Since the stand of the GOI and its opposition to the Writ
Petition is found to be contrary to law, and to the Bye-laws of
KRIBHCO, and diametrically opposes to the written opinion of
the learned Attorney General of India, the Petition is allowed in
the above terms, subject to payment of Rupees 50,000/- as costs
payable by Respondent No.1 which is directed to be deposited
in favour of the Chief Minister Relief Fund, Bihar within two
weeks from today.
( VIKRAMAJIT SEN )
JUDGE
September 17, 2008 ( S.L. BHAYANA )
tp JUDGE
