1971 (11) TMI 171 - HC - Indian Laws

Extension of Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 to Delhi upheld; Central Government's power to repeal Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 clarified.

A. Faqir Chand Versus C.P.W.D. Work Charged Staff Consumers Co-operative Society and Ors.

The court upheld the extension of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, to Delhi in 1949, clarifying that the Central Government had the power to ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the extension of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, to Delhi.2. The power of the Central Government to repeal the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, in Delhi.3. Proper authentication of the notification dated 8-1-1949.4. Jurisdiction of the Registrar in awarding costs and interest.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Extension of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, to Delhi:The petitioner argued that the Central Government had no power to extend the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 to Delhi in 1949 under section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, because the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 already applied to Delhi. The court held that Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, allowed the Central Government to extend any enactment in force in any part of British India to Delhi with such restrictions and modifications as it deemed fit. The intention of the legislature was to enable the Central Government to extend laws from the provinces to Delhi, even if an older, inadequate law on the same subject already existed there. Therefore, the contention that the Central Government could not extend the Bombay Act to Delhi if some other law already existed in Delhi on the same subject was rejected.2. Power of the Central Government to Repeal the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, in Delhi:The petitioner contended that the Central Government had no power to repeal the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, while extending the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, to Delhi. The court clarified that the repeal of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, was already effected by Section 73 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, in the province of Bombay long before the latter Act was extended to Delhi in 1949. The modification made to Section 73 of the Bombay Act was necessary to make it applicable to Delhi and did not constitute a new repeal by the Central Government. Even if the modification of Section 73 was considered a direct repeal, it would only render clause 12 of the notification invalid, not affecting the rest of the notification.3. Proper Authentication of the Notification Dated 8-1-1949:The petitioner argued that the notification was void because it was signed by a Deputy Secretary and not by the Governor General or the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. The court rejected this argument, stating that the issue of the notification was an exercise of executive power, which could be properly authenticated by a Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, as per the authorization under section 17(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The court emphasized that the distinction between legislative, judicial, and executive powers in the Constitution is based on the nature of the authority performing the act, not the nature of the act itself.4. Jurisdiction of the Registrar in Awarding Costs and Interest:The petitioner contended that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to grant costs and interest on the award. The court agreed, stating that the Registrar's jurisdiction under section 54 was restricted to the dispute referred to him, which was only regarding the principal sum. There was no claim or dispute regarding costs or interest. Therefore, the grant of costs and interest was beyond the Registrar's jurisdiction and constituted an error of law apparent on the face of the record. This part of the award was quashed, but the rest of the award was upheld.Conclusion:The writ petition was substantially dismissed, but the part of the award granting costs and interest to the respondent was quashed. The rest of the award was upheld, and the orders passed by the Cooperative Tribunal in appeal and revision were modified accordingly. No orders as to costs were made.