CHANDRIKA JHA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 27-10-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
646 
CHANDRIKA iHA 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
October 17, 1983 
" 
(A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950. Article 154(/) 'ExecutiVI power' of State-
Exerciseby Governor-Supervisory jurisdiction of State Governn1ent 11nd1r statute-
Whether exercisable under 'executive f!OWer'. 
Bihar & Orissa Co·operative Societies Act, 1935. S. 65A. 
Biha/ Co-operatiYe Society Rules, 1959 Bye-Law 29. 
District Co-operative 
Bank-First Board of Directors nominated by Regislrar-EXpiry of term-Chief 
Minister extending term from time to time-Minister-in-charge forwarding /iJt of 
names with directive to Registrar to make appointn1ent therefrom-Such actio~ 
}Vhether valid. 
Administrative LAw-Chief. Minister or Minister-incharge 
whether can 
exercis~ the functions of a statutory authority,. 
Bye-law 29 of the Bihar Co-operative Society Rules, l~i59 provided that 
the management of a Co-operative Bank shall vest in the Board of Directors, 
and that the first Board of Directors shall be nominated by the Registrar for a 
period not exceeding one year at a time and not exceeding three Co-operative 
years in the aggregate, and that the .Registrar could modify the nomination if 
and when required. 
The Registrar, Cooperative Societies in exercise of the power conferred 
by the aforesaid bye-law nominated a Committee of Management of 17 members 
to the first Board of Directors of the District Co-operative Bank. The Committee 
was· directed to get the election of the Board of Directors -completed within six 
months of .the date of their nomination. The appellarit who was a political 
person was nominated to be the Secretary of the first Board. 
The appellant got the period of the firSt Board of Directors extended from 
ti~e to time and the election of the Board postponed without any lawful ju1ti-
fication. Between October 1981 and November 1983 at the instance _of the 
appellant, the Chief Minister gave directions to the Minister (Co-operation), 
that the Registrar be asked to extend the term of the Board, and the· Registrar 
, 
r 
CllANbRilliA ', BIHAR . 
64? 
in turn extended the term with thC direction that the Committee of Marulaement 
should call a general meeting and· get .the Board of Directors elected. 
A 
When the Chief Minister demilted office, the third respondent, who was 
the Minister for Industries issued a direction to the CommissionCr of t~ 
co .. operative Department, marked as 'unofficial'. It was stated therein that if 
the Committee was reconstituted the Board shall lcgally·consist of seven mem-
bers oDly. For this purpose seven names were sent. If the Committee was 
superseded it was to consist of fifteen members. On a separate sheet the 
Minister indicated tlic first set of seven names and second set of eight names. 
In compliance with the Minister's directive the-R.:ejistrar by his impugned 
order in superseSsion of all earlier orders recori-s!itutCd- the first Board of 
Directors with immediate effect and directed that the 1enure of the office of the 
reconstituted Board shall be for the remainder of the term i.e. till, November 
30, 1983. 
Being a1grieved 1 the appellant assailed the order by a wrH petition in the 
Hiah Court, which was dismissed. 
On appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
the Registrar had no power to reconstitute the Board under bye~law 29 and 
that in any ·event the Minister could not issue any direction to the Registrar as 
to the reconstitution of the_Board. The respondents, however, contended that 
the Chief Minister had illegally usurped the statutory functions of the Registrar 
and passed several orders and that the Minister was justified in issuing the 
requisite orders. 
Allowina the appeal, 
HELD : I. Neither the Chief f\Hnister nor tl_le Minister for Cooperation 
or Jndustries had the power to arrogate to himself \he statutory functions of the 
Registrar under bye-law -9. Under the Cabinet system of Government, the 
Chief Minister occupies a position of pre":'eminence and he virtually carries on 
the governance of the State. The Chief Minister may call for any infor-
mation which is available to the Minister-in-charge of any department and may 
issue necessary directions for carrying on the general adn1inistration of the 
State Goverr,mcnt. Presumably, the Chief Minister dealt with the question as 
if it were an executive function of the State Government and thereby exceeded 
his powers in usurping the sta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.