SATYA PAL ANAND versus STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 6 S.C.R. 1 
SATYA PAL ANAND 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 33644/2011 
MAY 6, 2014 
[ANIL R. OAVE AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - s.3 - Co-
operative Society -Appointment of Registrar uls.3 - Validity 
A 
B 
of s.3 - Challenged - Held: Most of the functions of the C 
Registrar are in the sphere of administration and governance 
with few additional duties having quasi-judicial character - In 
such a situation and more particularly when a tribunal is 
constituted with all the trappings of a court, with power to hear 
appeals from the orders of the Registrar or his nominee, no o 
fault found with s.3 of the Act empowering the Government to 
appoint persons as Registrars, Joint Registrars, Deputy 
Registrars and Assistant Registrars etc. not necessarily with 
legal I judicial background -
Challenge to vires of s.3 
rejected. 
E 
M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - s. 3 - Co-
operative Society - Need for appointment of suitable persons 
.as Registrar, Joint Registrar etc. and Chairman and members 
of Co-operative tribunal - Direction given that the State 
Government shall, keep in mind the objective of the Act, the 
F 
functions which the Registrar, Joint Registrar etc. are required 
to perform and commensurate with those, appointment of 
suitable persons shall be made - Likewise, having regard to 
the fact that the Chairman of the Tribunal is to be a judicial 
person, namely, Former Judge of the High Court or the District G 
Judge, for appointment of the Chairman and the Members of 
the Trib'unal, the respondent-State is duty bound to keep in 
mind and follow the mandate of the Supreme Court judgment 
in R. Gandhi case - For appointment of the Chairman and 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 6 S.C.R. 
A Members of the Tribunal, selection to these posts be 
preferably made by the Public Service Commission in 
consultation with the High Court. 
M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - s.77(3)(b) 
- Co-operative Tribunal - Composition of - Members of the 
8 
tribunal appointed as per s. 77 (3) (b) - Validity of s. 77(3)(b) 
- Held: Valid - Scheme shows that out of the two Members, 
one would be 'administrative member' and other may be a 
'judicial member' though such nomenclature is not 
specifically assigned -
The tribunal consists of a former 
C Judge as Chairman, one member who has held high office 
of Joint Registrar in the department and the other member 
either with the legal background or a person closely 
associated with cooperative movement - No fault with the 
D 
provision. 
M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - s. 77(6) -
Co-operative Tribunal - s. 77(6) giving power to the State 
Government to terminate appointment of the Chairman or a 
Member -
Validity of s. 77(6) - Challenge to - Held: Power 
E u/s. 77(6) is to be exercised only when the State Government 
forms an opinion about the inability or unfitness of such 
Chairman or Member to perform the duties of his office - The 
opinion may be subjective but has to be based on objective 
consideration/material on record - It is not an omnibus or 
unguided/uncanalyzed power conferred upon the Government 
F - Further, the decision is always subject to judicial review -
Besides, proviso to sub-section (6) of s. 77 provides additional 
safeguards which mandate following procedure in 
consonance with principle of natural justice by giving 
reasonable opportunity of show cause against s.uch 
G termination - Final opinion to be formed only after eliciting 
and considering the defence - Therefore, no reason to hold 
such a provision as unconstitutional. 
The petitioner filed Writ petition in the High Court, 
H challenging the validity of Section 3 of the M.P. State Co-
SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. 
3 
operative Societies Act, 1960 to the extent this provision 
A 
permitted the State Government to appoint the Registrar 
of the Co-operative Society, as well as Additional 
Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant 
Registrar etc. The petitioner also challenged proviso 
added to Section 77 (3)(b) and Section 77 (6) of the Act 
B 
as unconstitutional. The grievance of the petitioner was 
that these provisions provided for appointment of 
persons not having any education in law, though 
discharging the judicial function, which 
was 
impermissible and ex-facie violative of Art. 14 and 2~ of c 
the Constitution. 
The High Court repelled the challenge of the 

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