LexREGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM AND ANR. versus K. KUNHAMBU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
260
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
TRIVANDRUM AND ANR.
v.
K. K~BU
& ORS.
November 2 7, 1979
[R. S. S.ARKARIA AND 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
Administrative law-Delegation of legislative power-A ct confers power on
Govern1nent to exempt co-operative society from operation of Act-Delegation
if excessive-Madras Cooperatire Societies Act 1932, S. 60-Whether void.
Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act,
1932, empowers the
State Government to exempt a registered society from any of the provisions of
the Act or to direct· that such provision shall apply toi such society with specified
modifications.
. d
In the appeal to this Court on the question whether Se~tion 60 of the Act
is void on the ground of unconstitutio_nal delegation of legislative power.
HELD : 1. Section 60 is not void on the ground of' excessive delegation of
legislative power. [267 CJ
2. The po\vcr given to 11le Government under section 60 of the Act is to be
exercised so as to advance the policy and objects of the Act, according to the
guidelines enunciated in the preamble and the other provisions of the Act.
[267 Bl
E
3. The Act, a welfare legislation, to facilitate the formation and working of
cooperative societies consists of numerous provisions, dealing with registration
of societies, rights and liabilities of 1nembers, duties of registered societies, pri-
vileges of registered societies, property and funds of registered societies. inquiry
and inspection, supersession of committees of societies, dissolution of societies,
surcharge and attachment, arbitration etc. The too rigorous application of some
of the provisions of the Act may itself occasionally result in frustrating. the very
F
objects of the Act instead of advancing them. To provide for such situations,
the Government was invested by section 60 with a power to relax the occasional
rigour of the provisions of the Act and to advance the objects of the Act.
G
[266 D, G; H 277 Al
4. (i) Parliament and the State Legislatures are endowed \Vith plenary power
to legislate upon any of the subjects entrusted to them by the Constitution, sub-
jectl to the limitations Unposed by the Constitution itself.
The· power to legislate
carries with it the power to delegate. While excessive delegation may amount
to abdication, delegaotion unlimited may invitei despotism uninhibited. The theory
has therefore been evolved that the legislature
cannot delegate
its essential
function. [262 H-263 Al
(ii) The Parliament and the State Legislatures are not bodies of experts or
specialists.
They are 8killed in the art of discovering the aspirations, the ex-
B
pectations and the needs, the limits to the patience and the aquiescence and the
articulation of the views of the people whom they represent.
They function
best when they concern themselves witli general principles, broad objectives and
\,
•
{
•
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES v. K. KUNHAMBU (Chinnappa Reddy, l.) 261
fundamental issues in.stead &f technical and situational intricacies which are
&.
better, left to better equipped full time expert executive bodies and specialist
public servants. Parliament and the State Legislatures have neither the time nor
the expertise to be involved in detail and circumstance. Nor can Parliament and
the State Legislatures visualise and provide for new, strange, unforeseen and
unpredictable situations arising from the complexity of modem life and the
ingenuity of modern' man. That is the raison d'etre for delegated legislation.
(262 E-G]
8:
(iii) The Legislatw·e may guide the delegate by speaking through the express
provision empowering delegation or the other provisions of the statute, the pre-
amble, the scheme or even the very subject matter of the statute. If guidance
there is, wherever it may be found the delegation is valid. A generous degree
of latitude must be held permissible in the case of welfare legislation, particu-
larly these statutes which are designed to further the Directive Principles of
c:
~tata Policy. (263 BJ
Delhi I.Aws Act 1912, [1951J SCR 747 : M. K. Papiah & Sons v. Excise Com-
mwioner [1975) 3 SCR 607 : Harishankar Bagla and Anr. v.
The State of
Madhya Pradesh [1955] 1 S.C.R., p. 380 @ 388 : The Edward Mills Co. Ltd.,
Beawar v. The State of A/mer [19551 1 S.C.R. 735 : Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot
v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Cl.959] S.C.R. 427: Sardar Inder Singh v. The
I>
Stale of Rajasthan, (1959) S.C.R. 605: Vasantlal MagExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.