Supreme Court dismisses petition challenging Amendment Act 2012 affecting Co-operative Societies.

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of certain sections of the Amendment Act, 2012, impacting Multi State Co-operative Societies. The court found the petitioner's actions, including filing a similar petition before the High Court and non-compliance with orders, amounted to an abuse of process. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and imposed costs on the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the constitutionality of sections of Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012, and the impact on Multi State Co-operative Societies.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought various reliefs in the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Firstly, the challenge was to declare certain sections of the Amendment Act as unconstitutional and void, arguing that bringing Multi State Co-operative Societies under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and RDDBFI Act, 1993, exceeded the legislative domain of the Parliament. The petitioner contended that this amendment infringed upon the exclusive legislative domain of State legislatures, thus affecting the federal structure of the constitution, a basic feature. The prayer was to declare the Amendment Act as unconstitutional and void on these grounds.

Secondly, the petitioner requested a declaration that provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, would prevail over the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for recovery from Co-operative Societies or members. Additionally, the petitioner challenged specific sections of the Amendment Act, arguing that the inclusion of Co-operative Societies within the SARFAESI Act was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the petitioner sought writs to quash notices issued under the SARFAESI Act, alleging violations of natural justice and relevant statutes. The petitioner requested orders to restrain the Respondent Bank from interfering with possession of properties claimed as secured assets, and to declare certain notices null and void.

Moreover, the petitioner sought relief against the Respondent Bank's actions, claiming breach of contract, trust, negligence, and tortious conduct. The prayer included a request for a writ prohibiting the Respondent Bank from classifying the petitioner as a willful defaulter or taking precipitous steps, emphasizing the need for due process and natural justice.

The judgment highlighted a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner before the High Court of Bombay under Article 226, with similar prayers. The High Court had passed an interim order, which was not complied with, leading to the vacation of the order. Despite the pending writ petition before the High Court, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court, which was deemed an abuse of process or misuse. Consequently, the writ petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioner.

---