Retrospective exemption and final quasi-judicial orders: later executive rescission cannot nullify accrued membership rights.

Section 88 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 permitted exemption from the Act and application with modifications, so a notification giving retrospective effect to an amended bye-law was valid where it implemented an earlier final appellate order regularising membership. A later rescinding notification could not nullify that final quasi-judicial order or take away accrued rights in the absence of express review power, and the rescission was ultra vires. The seniority assigned in the draw of lots was also upheld because the members concerned had been admitted before the appellants and their membership was later regularised.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the notification exempting the society from the operation of Section 12 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and giving the amended bye-law retrospective effect was within the power conferred by Section 88 of the Act and valid in law; (ii) whether the subsequent notification rescinding the earlier notification was valid when it had the effect of undoing the final quasi-judicial order passed in appeal under Section 76 of the Act; (iii) whether the seniority assigned to members in the draw of lots could be interfered with.

Issue (i): whether the notification exempting the society from the operation of Section 12 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and giving the amended bye-law retrospective effect was within the power conferred by Section 88 of the Act and valid in law.

Analysis: Section 88 empowered the Lt. Governor to exempt a cooperative society from provisions of the Act or apply them with modifications. The notification was read as implementing the earlier final appellate order that had permitted amendment of the bye-law to regularise long-standing members. The Court treated the wording as permitting the amended bye-law to operate from an earlier date so that the quasi-judicial purpose was not frustrated. The notification was held to be neither beyond the statutory power nor unreasonable or mala fide.

Conclusion: The notification dated 27 October 1987 was valid.

Issue (ii): whether the subsequent notification rescinding the earlier notification was valid when it had the effect of undoing the final quasi-judicial order passed in appeal under Section 76 of the Act.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had become final and created substantive rights in favour of members whose membership had been regularised. The subsequent rescinding notification was found, in substance, to nullify that final quasi-judicial order without any power of review. The Court also held that a rescinding power under the General Clauses Act could not be used to take away accrued rights in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The notification dated 29 August 1990 was ultra vires and invalid.

Issue (iii): whether the seniority assigned to members in the draw of lots could be interfered with.

Analysis: The Court accepted the High Court's view that the 15 members whose affidavits had earlier been found defective had in fact been admitted before the appellants and only their membership was later regularised. Their seniority was therefore not erroneous.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the seniority determination.

Final Conclusion: The challenged notifications did not entitle the appellants to relief, and the dismissal of the appeal followed from the validity of the earlier regularisation process and the invalidity of the later rescinding measure.

Ratio Decidendi: A final quasi-judicial order regularising membership cannot be indirectly reviewed or nullified by a later executive notification in the absence of an express statutory power of review, and a statutory exemption may validly confer retrospective operation where such effect is necessary to give substance to the earlier lawful order.

---