Co-operative society tenure limits upheld as a valid electoral safeguard and not violative of equality norms.

The Chhattisgarh High Court examined whether the 2004 amendment to the Co-operative Societies law, which removed the power to extend a committee's tenure and prescribed consequences on expiry, was ultra vires or arbitrary under Article 14. The majority upheld the amendment, holding that the State had plenary legislative competence after reorganisation, was not bound to mirror the earlier Madhya Pradesh position, and could validly protect periodic elections and members' franchise by preventing continuation of elected bodies beyond their tenure. It also held that the earlier striking down of a similar provision did not bar fresh legislation within competence. The dissent considered the amendment a mere reproduction of the invalidated provision and constitutionally defective.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2004, by omitting the provisions enabling extension of the committee's term and substituting the consequences on expiry of term, was ultra vires and violative of Article 14, and whether the Chhattisgarh Legislature lacked competence to re-enact the impugned amendment after the earlier similar provision had been struck down.

Analysis: The majority held that the State Legislature of Chhattisgarh had plenary legislative competence after reorganisation and was not bound to replicate the earlier Madhya Pradesh legislative position. The impugned amendment was examined in the context of the co-operative scheme, the statutory tenure of committees, the duty to hold periodic elections, and the object of preserving democratic functioning in co-operative societies. The majority found that the amendment curtailed extensions of committee terms, prevented continuation of elected bodies beyond the prescribed tenure, and strengthened the right of franchise of members. It further held that the earlier judgment striking down a similar provision did not disable the Chhattisgarh Legislature from enacting a fresh law within its competence, and that the impugned amendment did not suffer from arbitrariness or lack of reasonable nexus with the statutory object.

Conclusion: The impugned amendment was held to be constitutionally valid and not violative of Article 14; the challenge failed.

Dissenting Opinion: Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. held that the amendment merely reproduced the earlier invalidated provision without removing the defects noticed by the earlier judgment, was not a valid validating exercise, and was arbitrary and subversive of the democratic structure of co-operatives. On that view, the writ petitions were allowed and the amendment was struck down.

---