{"id":232939,"date":"2011-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011"},"modified":"2018-09-25T18:30:19","modified_gmt":"2018-09-25T13:00:19","slug":"shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011<\/div>\n
   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n              Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7581 of 2008\n                                   With\n               Interlocutory Application No.2213 of 2011\n======================================================\n<\/pre>\n
1. Ramzan Ansari son of Md. Yar Ansari, Delegate, Bhabhua Cooperative
\n   Cold Storage Society Ltd., Bhabhua, District-Kaimur.\n<\/p>\n
2. Wakil Prasad Yadav son of Late Ram Pravesh Singh Yadav, Delegate of
\n   Marhaura C.D. & C.M. Union Ltd., Marhaura, District-Saran.\n<\/p>\n
3. Thano Munda son of Late Manki Munda, Delegate of Pandara LAMPS,
\n   Kanke, Ranchi, Jharkhand.\n<\/p>\n
4. Satish Das son of Brahmdeo Das, Deletage of Sarsojole LAMPS,
\n   Shikarpara, Dumka, Jharkhand.\n<\/p>\n
5. Narendra Sharma son of Late Baleshwar Singh, Delegate of Kurtha
\n   Byapar Mandal Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Kurtha, Distt.-Jehanabad.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         …. ….   Petitioners
\n                                  Versus\n<\/p>\n
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary to the Government of Bihar,
\n   Cooperative Department, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Cooperative
\n   Department, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
4. Shri P.K. Sinha, Joint Registrar (Marketing), Cooperative Societies,
\n   Bihar Patna-cum-The Election Officer, BISCOMAUN, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
5. Chairman, Bihar State Cooperative Creative Marketing Union Ltd.
\n   (BISCOMAUN), West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
6. The Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd. (BISCOMAUN),
\n   West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna through its Managing Director.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         …. …. Respondents
\n======================================================
\n                                   With
\n              Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9993 of 2008
\n======================================================
\nUday Kumar Mishra, son of Satendra Mishra, Resident of Mohalla
\nThakurwari Road, Shrinagar Sahpur, Aurangabad, P.S. Aurangabad Sadar,
\n 2   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         2 \/ 28<\/p>\n
            District Aurangabad.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     …. ….   Petitioner
\n                                                  Versus\n<\/p>\n
            1. The State of Bihar.\n<\/p>\n
            2. The Secretary, Co-operative Department, Vikash Bhawan, New
\n                Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            3. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat,
\n                Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            4. The Under Secretary, Co-operative Department, Vikash Bhawan, New
\n                Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            5. P.P. Ojha, State Anushrawan Officer-cum-Election Officer, Bihar State
\n                Cooperative Bank Limited, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            6. The Bihar State Cooperative Bank Limited, through its Managing
\n                Director, Ashok Raj Path, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            7. The Chairman, Bihar State Cooperative Bank Limited, Ashok Raj Path,
\n                Patna.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   …. …. Respondents
\n            ======================================================
\n                                                   With
\n                           Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11468 of 2008
\n            ======================================================\n<\/p>\n
            1. Dhumnagar Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society having its
\n                office at Dhumnagar, P.S. Nautan, Distt. West Champaran through its
\n                Chairman, Harish Chandra Prasad.\n<\/p>\n
            2. Harish Chandra Prasad, S\/o Late Hari Narain Pd., Resident of Village
\n                Dhumnagar, P.S. Nautan, Distt. West Champaran.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    .... ....    Petitioners\n                                                  Versus\n<\/pre>\n
            1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Cooperative,
\n                Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            2. Shri Yogendra Prasad, son of name not known to petitioner, Secretary to
\n                Governor, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            3. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            4. Jt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.\n<\/p>\n
            5. District Cooperative Officer, West Champaran at Bettiah.\n<\/p>\n
            6. Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nautan, Distt. West Champaran.\n<\/p>\n
 3   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         3 \/ 28<\/p>\n
            7. Cooperative Extension Officers, C\/o District Cooperative Officer, West
\n                Champaran at Bettiah.\n<\/p>\n
            8. Managing Director, National Central Cooperative Bank, Bettiah, West
\n                Champaran.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       …. …. Respondents
\n            ======================================================
\n                                                   With
\n                           Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11807 of 2008
\n            ======================================================
\n            Tarkeshwar Singh, S\/o late Mahesh Singh, Resident of Village Dullahpur,
\n            P.S. Simeri, Distt. Buxar, at present Director, Central Cooperative Bank,
\n            Arrah.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        …. ….   Petitioner
\n                                                  Versus\n<\/p>\n
            1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Cooperative,
\n                Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            2. Shri Yogendra Prasad, Secretary to the Governor, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            3. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            4. Jt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patna Division.\n<\/p>\n
            5. District Cooperative Officer, Arrah, Distt. Bhojpur.\n<\/p>\n
            6. Arrah Central Cooperative Bank, Arrah, through its Managing Director.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       …. …. Respondents
\n            ======================================================
\n                                                   With
\n                           Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13186 of 2008
\n            ======================================================\n<\/p>\n
            1. Usman Chak Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society through
\n                its Chairman Dhaneshwar Mochi, son of Late Ramdhani Mochi, Village
\n                Usman Chak, P.S. Masaurhi, District-Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            2. Bhadaura Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society through its
\n                Chairman Nageshwar Prasad Singh, son of Late Chandrika Singh,
\n                village Bhadaura, P.S. Masaurhi, District-Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            3. Rewa Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society through its
\n                Chairman Ganesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Jagat Pd. Singh, Village
\n                Saguni, P.S. Masaurhi, District-Patna.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       .... ....    Petitioners\n 4   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span>\n\n\n                                         4 \/ 28\n\n\n\n\n                                                  Versus\n<\/pre>\n
            1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary to the Government,
\n                Department of Law, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            2. The Secretary to the Government, Cooperative Department, Bihar,
\n                Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            3. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            4. The District Cooperative Officer, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            5. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Masaurhi, District-\n<\/p>\n
                Patna.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     …. …. Respondents
\n            ======================================================
\n                                                   With
\n                            Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14376 of 2008
\n            ======================================================
\n            Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, aged about 56 years, son of Sri Janardhan
\n            Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Goar Dharmpur, P.O.-Nadama Tola, P.S.
\n            Barh, Distt. Patna, at present Chairman of Nadama Panchayat PACS
\n            (West), Barh.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      …. ….   Petitioner
\n                                                  Versus\n<\/p>\n
            1. The State of Bihar.\n<\/p>\n
            2. The Registrar Cooperative, Government of Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            3. Joint Registrar, Patna Division, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            4. The District Cooperative Officer, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            5. Assistant Registrar Barh, Distt.-Patna.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     …. …. Respondents
\n            ======================================================
\n                                                   With
\n                            Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14635 of 2008
\n            ======================================================\n<\/p>\n
            1. Sindhuwari Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society having its
\n                office at Erarzi Nainha, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, Distt Vaishali through its
\n                Chairman, Sri Birendra Kumar (petitioner no.2)\n<\/p>\n
            2. Birendra Kumar, S\/o Shri Jamun Rai, resident of Nainha, P.S. Hajipur
\n                Sadar, Distt Vaishali Chairman of the Sindhuwari PACS (petitioner
\n                no.1).\n<\/p>\n
 5   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         5 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                                                                      …. ….   Petitioners
\n                                                  Versus\n<\/p>\n
            1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary to the Government,
\n                Department of Law, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            2. The Secretary to the Government, Cooperative Department, Bihar,
\n                Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            3. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            4. The Jt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.\n<\/p>\n
            5. The District Cooperative Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.\n<\/p>\n
            6. Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hajipur, Dist. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
            7. Block Cooperative Extension Officer, Hajipur Distt. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
            8. Cooperative Extension Officer attached to the Vyapar Mandal
\n                Cooperative Society, Hajipur, Distt. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     …. …. Respondents
\n            ======================================================
\n                                                   With
\n                           Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15080 of 2008
\n            ======================================================
\n            Karmopur Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society having its office
\n            at Mirzapur, P.S. Raghopur, Distt. Vaishali through its Chairman, Smt.
\n            Bhanu Devi, W\/o Shri Bikram Kumar Singh, Resident of Village Mirzapur,
\n            P.S. Raghopur, Distt. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      …. ….   Petitioners
\n                                                  Versus\n<\/p>\n
            1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary to the Government,
\n                Department of Law, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            2. The Secretary to the Government, Cooperative Department, Bihar,
\n                Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            3. The Under Secretary to the Government, Cooperative Department,
\n                Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            4. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            5. District Cooperative Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.\n<\/p>\n
            6. Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raghopur Block, Dist. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
            7. Block Cooperative Extension Officer, Raghopur, Distt. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
            8. Cooperative Extension Officer Raghopur Block, Distt. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           .... ....     Respondents 1st Party\n 6   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span>\n\n\n                                          6 \/ 28\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
            9. Jaferabad Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society having its
\n                office at Jaferabad, P.S. Raghopur, Distt. Vaishali through its Chairman,
\n                Shri Bhagwan Lal Rai, father\u201fs name not known, Resident of Village
\n                Jaferabad, P.S. Raghopur, Distt. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               …. …. Respondent 2nd Party
\n            ======================================================
\n                                                   With
\n                           Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15082 of 2008
\n            ======================================================
\n            Sukumarpur Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society having its
\n            office at Sukumarpur, P.S. Raghopur, Distt. Vaishali through its Chairman,
\n            Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, S\/o Late Satyendra Narain Singh, Resident of
\n            Village Sukumarpur, P.S. Raghopur, Distt. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         …. ….   Petitioner
\n                                                   Versus\n<\/p>\n
            1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary to the Government,
\n                Department of Law, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            2. The Secretary to the Government, Cooperative Department, Bihar,
\n                Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            3. The Under Secretary to the Government, Cooperative Department,
\n                Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            4. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
            5. District Cooperative Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.\n<\/p>\n
            6. Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raghopur Block, Dist. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
            7. Block Cooperative Extension Officer, Raghopur, Distt. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
            8. Cooperative Extension Officer Raghopur Block, Distt. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            …. ….     Respondents 1st Party\n<\/p>\n
            9. Jahangirpur Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society having its
\n                office at Jahangirpur, P.S. Raghopur, Distt. Vaishali through its
\n                Chairman, Shri Sabhapati Singh, father\u201fs name not known, Resident of
\n                Village Jahangirpur, P.S. Raghopur, Distt. Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               …. …. Respondent 2nd Party
\n            ======================================================
\n            Appearance :\n<\/p>\n
            (In CWJC No.7581 of 2008)
\n            For the Petitioners       :        Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate with
\n 7   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             7 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                                                  Mr. Nitiranjan Jha, Advocate
\n                                                  Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
\n                                                  Mrs. Kiran Kumari, Advocate
\n            For the Respondents 1 to 4:           Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with
\n                                                  Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                                                  Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to AAG-1
\n            For the Respondent No.5 :             Mr. Ishwari Singh, Advocate
\n            For the Interveners      :            Mr. Anil Amrit, Advocate with
\n            (I.A. No.2213 of 2011)                Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
\n            (In CWJC No.9993 of 2008)
\n            For the Petitioner       :            Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate
\n            For the Respondent State :            Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with
\n                                                  Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                                                  Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to AAG-1
\n            For the Respondent No.6:              Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate
\n            (In CWJC No.11468 of 2008)
\n            For the Petitioners          :        Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate with
\n                                                  Mr. Raghunath Kumar, Advocate
\n            For the Respondent State :            Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with
\n                                                  Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                                                  Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to AAG-1
\n            (In CWJC No.11807 of 2008)
\n            For the Petitioner       :            Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate with
\n                                                  Mr. Raghunath Kumar, Advocate
\n            For the Respondent State :            Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with
\n                                                  Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                             Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to AAG-1
\n            (In CWJC No.13186 of 2008)
\n            For the Petitioners          :        Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate with
\n                                                  Mr. Raghunath Kumar, Advocate
\n            For the Respondent State :            Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with
\n                                                  Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                             Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to AAG-1
\n            (In CWJC No.14376 of 2008)
\n            For the Petitioner       :            None
\n            For the Respondent State :            Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with
\n 8          Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                    8 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                                                         Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                                                         Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                   (In CWJC No.14635 of 2008)
\n                   For the Petitioners          :        Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate with
\n                                                         Mr. Raghunath Kumar, Advocate
\n                                                         Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate
\n                   For the Respondent State :            Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with
\n                                                         Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                                                         Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                   (In CWJC No.15080 of 2008)
\n                   For the Petitioner       :            Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate
\n                                                         Mr. Raghunath Kumar, Advocate
\n                   For the Respondent State :            Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, AAG-2 with
\n                                                         Mr. Biresh Kumar Sinha, A.C. to AAG-2
\n                   (In CWJC No.15082 of 2008)
\n                   For the Petitioner       :            Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate
\n                                                         Mr. Raghunath Kumar, Advocate
\n                   For the Respondent State :            Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with
\n                                                         Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                                                         Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to AAG-1
\n                   ======================================================
\n                   CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
\n                               and
\n                               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
\n                   C.A.V. ORDER
\n                   (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)<\/p>\n
16.   23-09-2011                     This group of writ petitions under Article 226 of the
\n                   Constitution are filed by the elected delegates of various Primary
\n                   Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies (hereinafter referred to
\n                   as “the PACS”) in the State of Bihar. The petitioners have
\n                   challenged the constitutional validity of Section 14A (1) and 14A
\n                   (2) of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter
\n                   referred to as \u201ethe Act of 1935\u201f) inserted by Section 5 of the Bihar
\n 9   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         9 \/ 28<\/p>\n
            Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Bihar Act 18 of
\n            2008 published in the Official Gazette on 30 th April 2008)
\n            (hereinafter referred to as \u201ethe Act of 2008\u201f) and the Government
\n            Notification dated 1st May 2008. The petitioners have also
\n            challenged the order dated 1st May 2008 made by the respondent
\n            no.2, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar (hereinafter
\n            referred to as \u201ethe Registrar\u201f).\n<\/p>\n
                             The matter at dispute is the election of the Governing
\n            Body of the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited
\n            (hereinafter referred to as \u201ethe BISCOMAUN\u201f), a Cooperative
\n            Society registered under the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act,
\n            1935. The BISCOMAUN is the apex Cooperative Society of
\n            which the district level Marketing Societies and the Panchayat
\n            level Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) are the
\n            members. Pursuant to the report of the Baidyanathan Committee,
\n            with a view to reviving the short term cooperative credit structure,
\n            the State of Bihar has, under the Act of 2008, made certain
\n            amendments to the Act of 1935. The impugned section 14A is part
\n            of that amendment.\n<\/p>\n
                             The State of Bihar has, with a view to providing a
\n            common mechanism and procedure for holding elections of the
\n            managing committees of the cooperative societies and elected
\n            representatives of the bodies and institutions managed by the
\n            elected bodies, established the State Election Authority under the
\n            Bihar State Election Authority Act, 2008 (Bihar Act 14 of 2008
\n            published in the Official Gazette on 23rd April 2008) (hereinafter
\n            referred to as “the Act 14 of 2008”). The Election Authority is
\n            constituted under Section 3 of the said Act. Section 4 of the said
\n            Act      confers      the    power,      authority   and   jurisdiction   of
\n            superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of
\n 10   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         10 \/ 28<\/p>\n
             electoral rolls and for conduct of elections to such bodies as
\n             Cooperative Societies, Shiksha Samiti or any other institution,
\n             organization, establishment, which may be entrusted to it by the
\n             State Government. Section 5 of the said Act provides for
\n             administrative machinery for conduct of election.\n<\/p>\n
                              In exercise of power conferred by the aforesaid
\n             Section 14A (1) of the Act of 1935 read with the Act 14 of 2008,
\n             the State Government, under impugned Notification dated 1st May
\n             2008, brought seven societies including the PACS, the Marketing
\n             Societies and the BISCOMAUN within the purview of the State
\n             Election Authority constituted under the aforesaid Bihar State
\n             Election Authority Act, 2008. The said Notification was published
\n             in the Government gazette on 7th May 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                              Under the prevailing Bye-laws, election of the
\n             governing body of the BISCOMAUN is held from amongst the
\n             delegates elected by the constituent district level Marketing
\n             Cooperative Societies and the PACS. The delegates elected by the
\n             aforesaid       district    level     Marketing    Cooperative   Societies
\n             (Marketing Societies) and the PACS elect from amongst
\n             themselves the members of the governing body and the Managing
\n             Director of the BISCOMAUN. The term of the existing governing
\n             body of the BISCOMAUN was about to expire on 24 th May 2008.
\n             In the wake of completion of the term of the existing governing
\n             body, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar under his order
\n             dated 3rd March 2008 declared election programme for election of
\n             the delegates of the Marketing Societies and the PACS and the
\n             election of the governing body of the BISCOMAUN. The election
\n             of the delegates of the PACS was completed on 12 th April 2008 as
\n             scheduled. The petitioners are those delegates who were elected by
\n             the respective PACS on 12th April 2008. Before the date of filing
\n 11   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         11 \/ 28<\/p>\n
             nominations for election to the governing body of the
\n             BISCOMAUN on 12th May 2008, the Act of 1935 was amended
\n             by the Act of 2008. In view of Section 14A inserted by the Act of
\n             2008 and the Government Notification dated 1st May 2008, the
\n             PACS and the BISCOMAUN having been brought within the
\n             purview of the State Election Authority, the Registrar, by order
\n             dated 1st May 2008, stayed the election process for election of the
\n             governing body of the BISCOMAUN. Feeling aggrieved the
\n             petitioners have filed the present writ petitions to challenge
\n             constitutional validity of Section 14A of the Act of 1935 and the
\n             Notification dated 1st May 2008 and also to challenge the order
\n             dated 1st May 2008 made by the Registrar.\n<\/p>\n
                              As the said order was made before the Government
\n             Notification was published in the Official Gazette, by order dated
\n             7th May 2008 made on C.W.J.C. No. 7581 of 2008, the same was
\n             stayed. In view of the Court order, after the Notification was
\n             published in the Official Gazette on 7th May 2008, on 9th May
\n             2008 the Registrar made order afresh. This time the Registrar not
\n             only stayed the process for election of the governing body of the
\n             BISCOMAUN but he also stayed the election of the delegates of
\n             the PACS. The said order dated 9th May 2008 has also been
\n             challenged in Interlocutory Application No.2893 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                              Section 14A of the Act of 1935 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                  “14A.       Election          to   the   Managing
\n                      Committee of certain registered societies.- (1) The
\n                      Government may by notification in the Official
\n                      Gazette prescribe that election to the Managing
\n                      Committee of a class or classes of registered
\n                      societies shall be conducted by an authority, by
\n                      whatever name such an authority may be known,
\n 12   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         12 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                      created for the purpose of conduct of election to
\n                      the Managing Committee of registered societies
\n                      under this Act and\/or for any other body,
\n                      organization, committee etc. and in the manner
\n                      prescribed for the conduct of election by such
\n                      authority.\n<\/p>\n
                              (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
\n                      any provision of this Act, rules made thereunder
\n                      and bye laws of a registered society, the election to
\n                      the Managing Committee of such class or classes of
\n                      registered societies notified under sub-section (1),
\n                      shall, after the date of such notification, be held in
\n                      terms of the provision of this section, even if the
\n                      process of election has commenced but the result of
\n                      such election has not been declared prior to that
\n                      date.\n<\/p>\n
                              (3) Notwithstanding any thing contained in
\n                      sub-section (9) of Section-14 of this Act, rules made
\n                      thereunder and the bye laws of a registered
\n                      society, the election to the Managing Committee of
\n                      the class or classes of registered societies notified
\n                      under sub-section (1) shall be held within six
\n                      months from the date of such notification which
\n                      may further be extended for a period of six
\n                      months.\n<\/p>\n
                              (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in
\n                      sub-section (9) of Section-14 of this Act, rules made
\n                      thereunder and the bye laws of a registered
\n                      society, if the term of the Managing Committee of
\n                      such registered societies notified under sub-section
\n 13   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         13 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                      (1) expires after the notification under that sub-
\n                      section, shall get extended till such time the
\n                      Managing Committee is constituted after elections
\n                      in terms of the provision contained in that sub-
\n                      section.\n<\/p>\n
                              (5)    Any registered society notified under
\n                      sub-section (1) and after the constitution of its
\n                      Managing Committee under sub-section (2) is
\n                      superseded or ceases to exist for whatever reason,
\n                      before the expiry of its terms under sub-section (9)
\n                      of Section-14, the election to the Managing
\n                      Committee for such society shall be conducted by
\n                      the same authority as prescribed under sub-section
\n                      (1). The term of such Managing Committee
\n                      including the term held by the earlier Managing
\n                      Committee         along      with     the   period   due   to
\n                      supersession or otherwise, if any, shall not exceed
\n                      the period prescribed under the provision of sub-
\n                      section (9) of Section-14.\n<\/p>\n
                              (6) No election to any class or classes of
\n                      registered societies notified under sub-section (1)
\n                      shall not be called in question except by way of an
\n                      election petition filed within ninety days from
\n                      declaration of the result of such election and the
\n                      same shall be decided as a dispute under Section-
\n                      48 of this Act. Such an election petition shall be
\n                      filed before the Registrar or such other officer
\n                      appointed to assist the Registrar under Section-6
\n                      of this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
                              Learned counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri has appeared for the
\n 14   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         14 \/ 28<\/p>\n
              petitioners. He has submitted that the impugned Notification
\n              bringing the BISCOMAUN within the purview of the Election
\n              Authority is vitiated by malafide. He has submitted that the Act of
\n              2008 was enacted on 18th April 2008 and was published in the
\n              official gazette of the State Government on 30th April 2008. The
\n              said Act, therefore, became effective on 30th April 2008.
\n              Immediately on 1st May 2008 the impugned Notification was
\n              issued under Section 14A of the Act of 1935 bringing the
\n              BISCOMAUN within the purview of the State Election Authority.
\n              The intention to nullify the election of the writ petitioners as the
\n              delegates of the respective PACS is writ large in the conduct of
\n              the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
                              Mr. Giri has submitted that Section 14A of the Act of
\n              1935 confers unfettered and indiscriminate power upon the State
\n              Government to bring any Cooperative Society within the purview
\n              of the State Election Authority or any other authority created for
\n              the purpose. Such indiscriminate power is likely to be misused
\n              and in the present case, as demonstrated above, it is in fact
\n              misused. The conferment of power without any guidelines
\n              amounts to excessive delegation of power which in itself vitiates
\n              the enactment.\n<\/p>\n
                              In the alternative Mr. Giri has submitted that under
\n              impugned Section 14A of the Act of 1935 the election of a society
\n              is required to be held afresh in case the election has commenced
\n              but not completed. In the present case, the election of the writ
\n              petitioners as the delegates of the PACS was completed before the
\n              date of the Act of 2008. The said election, therefore, need not be
\n              and cannot be directed to be held afresh. May be, that           the
\n              election of the governing body of the BISCOMAUN from
\n              amongst the delegates elected by the PACS is required to be
\n 15   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         15 \/ 28<\/p>\n
              conducted by the Election Authority. In support of his
\n              submissions Mr. Giri has relied upon the judgments of the
\n              Hon\u201fble Supreme Court in the matters of M\/s Devi Das Gopal
\n              Krishna, etc. v. State of Punjab and others, (A.I.R. 1967 S.C.
\n              1895); and of The State of Punjab and another v. Khan Chand,
\n              [(1974) 1 SCC 549]; and of this Court in the matters of Vidya
\n              Singh v. The State of Bihar and others (1989 PLJR 377); and of
\n              Rameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar and others, [1993 (1) BLJ
\n              210].\n<\/p>\n
                              The Petitions are contested by the learned Additional
\n              Advocate General-1 Mr. Lalit Kishore. He has submitted that
\n              unless it is demonstrated that the impugned provision contravenes
\n              any of the provisions of the Constitution, the same cannot be held
\n              to be ultra vires. In support of his submission he has relied upon
\n              the judgments of the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court in the matters of
\n              Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. P. Laxmi Devi
\n              (Smt.),<\/a> [(2008) 4 SCC 720); of Sardar Sarup Singh and others v.
\n              State of Punjab and others<\/a>, (A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 860); of Ram
\n              Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, (A.I.R.<\/a> 1958 S.C. 538); of
\n              The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and<\/a> another,
\n              (A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 75); of Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of
\n              Saurashtra, (A.I.R.<\/a> 1952 S.C. 123); of V.C. Shukla v. Delhi
\n              Admn., (A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1382); of L.N. Mukherjee v. State of
\n              Madras, (A.I.R.<\/a> 1961 S.C. 1601); of Matajog Dobey v. H.C.
\n              Bhari, (A.I.R.<\/a> 1956 S.C. 44); of this court in the matter of Bihar
\n              Agriculture Marketing Board Employees Association v. State of
\n              Bihar, [2008 (2) PLJR 274]; and of the Supreme Court of the
\n              United States in the matter of Charlie Middleton, Plff. In Err., v.
\n              Texas Power & Light Company, (249 U.S. 152).\n<\/p>\n
                              Learned advocate Mr. Ishwari Singh has appeared for
\n 16   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         16 \/ 28<\/p>\n
              the Chairman, BISCOMAUN. He has supported the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                              Learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Mishra has appeared
\n              for the Central Cooperative Bank in C.W.J.C. Nos. 11807 of
\n              2008, 13186 of 2008 and 15082 of 2008. He has supported the
\n              writ petitions. He has submitted that impugned Section 14A of the
\n              Act of 1935 infringes the fundamental right to form association
\n              conferred by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. He has also
\n              relied upon Section 44AQ of the Act of 1935.\n<\/p>\n
                              Under Section 6 of the Act of 2008 the State
\n              Government has made certain amendment in Section 44AQ of the
\n              Act of 1935. Section 44AQ of the Act of 1935 empowers the
\n              Registrar to order liquidation of the societies and amalgamation of
\n              several societies. The sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of the said
\n              Section 44AQ, since its amendment by the Act of 2008, read as
\n              under:\n<\/p>\n
                               44AQ “(2)(a) In order to achieve the
\n                       objective of this Act, to bring uniformity in the
\n                       operation of the societies under this Chapter, to
\n                       enhance their strength and usefulness and to make
\n                       them viable for the purpose of development of
\n                       agriculture, the area of a Primary Agriculture
\n                       Credit Society shall be co-terminus with that of a
\n                       panchayat and there will be only one such society
\n                       in each panchayat.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              (b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
\n                       contained in this Act, if the area of a Primary
\n                       Agriculture Credit Society is found not to be that
\n                       of a panchayat as provided under sub-clause (a) of
\n                       this sub-section, the Registrar or an officer
\n                       authorized by Registrar to act on his behalf, who
\n 17   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         17 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                      shall not be below the rank of Assistant Registrar,
\n                      may        order       for      reorganization         including
\n                      amalgamation or division of one or more such
\n                      societies as the case may be and register the new
\n                      society\/societies after such reorganization.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              “(3) Notwithstanding anything contrary in
\n                      this Act, the society or societies which are
\n                      reorganized under sub-section (2) along with its
\n                      Managing Committee shall be deemed to have
\n                      been dissolved and shall cease to exist from the
\n                      date of registration of the new society\/societies
\n                      under sub-section (2) and the membership of such
\n                      registered society shall stand transferred to the
\n                      respective primary agriculture credit society
\n                      created for the panchayat to which such members
\n                      belong after reorganization under sub-section (2)
\n                      and all the assets and liabilities thereof shall get
\n                      divided\/distributed              amongst         the        new
\n                      society\/societies in the manner prescribed by the
\n                      Registrar\/Government;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              Provided that the State Govt. may from time
\n                      to time, declare a moratorium on the liabilities of
\n                      the new society\/societies created under sub-section
\n                      (2) of this Section.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              “(4)(a) Notwithstanding anything contrary in
\n                      this Act, upon the reorganization of societies under
\n                      sub-section (2) of this Section and establishment of
\n                      new society\/societies under sub-section (3) of this
\n                      section, the Registrar\/Government shall constitute
\n                      or provide for constitution of an ad hoc Managing
\n 18   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         18 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                      Committee for the purposes of managing the
\n                      affairs of the new society\/societies till such time as
\n                      a new Managing Committee is constituted after
\n                      elections under the provisions of this Act and the
\n                      ad hoc managing committee so constituted shall
\n                      exercise such powers and perform such functions
\n                      as may be prescribed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              (b) Notwithstanding anything contrary in
\n                      this Act, upon the constitution of the new
\n                      Managing Committee after elections under clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (a), the Managing Committee of all such affiliating
\n                      societies of which a primary agriculture credit
\n                      society is a member or federation of such
\n                      affiliating societies, shall be reconstituted, as per
\n                      provisions contained in this Act for constitution of
\n                      the Managing Committee of such societies.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              Thus, by amendment made under the Act of 2008 the
\n              structure of the PACS has been modified from its roots. The
\n              PACS are required to be reorganized and the election of the
\n              Managing Committee of such reorganized PACS are required to
\n              be held as envisaged by above referred Section 44AQ read with
\n              Section 14A of the Act of 1935 read with the Bihar Act 14 of
\n              2008.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              In the matter of M\/s Devi Das Gopal Krishna
\n             (supra), challenge before the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court was in
\n             respect of certain provisions of Punjab General Sales Tax Act.
\n             Challenge was on the ground of uncontrolled power given to the
\n             Provincial Government to levy tax. The Hon\u201fble Supreme Court
\n             observed that, “”The Constitution confers a power and imposes
\n             a duty on the legislature to make laws. The essential legislative
\n 19   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         19 \/ 28<\/p>\n
             function is the determination of the legislative policy and its
\n             formulation as a rule of conduct. Obviously it cannot abdicate
\n             its functions in favour of another. But in view of the
\n             multifarious activities of a welfare State, it cannot presumably
\n             work out all the details to suit the varying aspects of a complex
\n             situation. It must necessarily delegate the working out of
\n             details to the executive or any other agency. But there is a
\n             danger inherent in such a process of delegation. An
\n             overburdened legislature or one controlled by a powerful
\n             executive may unduly overstep the limits of delegation. It may
\n             not lay down any policy at all; it may declare its policy in vague
\n             and general terms; it may not set down any standard                      for the
\n             guidance of the executive; it may confer an arbitrary power on
\n             the executive to change or modify the policy laid down by it
\n             without reserving for            itself any        control   over    subordinate
\n             legislation. This self effacement of legislative power in favour of
\n             another agency either in whole or in part is beyond the
\n             permissible limits of delegation. It is for a Court to hold on a
\n             fair, generous and liberal construction of an impugned statute
\n             whether the legislature exceeded such limits.                       But the said
\n             liberal construction should not be carried by the Courts to the
\n             extent of always trying to discover a dormant or latent
\n             legislative policy to sustain an arbitrary power conferred on
\n             executive authorities. It is the duty of the Court to strike down
\n             without any hesitation any arbitrary power conferred on the
\n             executive by the legislature.”\n<\/p>\n
                               Having said thus, the Court declared the impugned
\n              Section 5 as void. The Court observed, “the minimum we expect
\n              of the Legislature is to lay down in the Act conferring such a
\n              power of fixation of rates clear legislative policy or guidelines
\n 20   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         20 \/ 28<\/p>\n
              in that regard.”\n<\/p>\n
                              In the matter of Khan Chand (supra), the constitution
\n              Bench of the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High
\n              Court striking down Section 2 of the East Punjab Moveable
\n              Property (Requisitioning) Act, 1947 on the ground that it violated
\n              Article 14 of the Constitution. The majority view held, “The Act
\n              confers arbitrary powers for requisitioning of movable
\n              property upon the authorities under the Act and that no
\n              guidelines whatsoever have              been prescribed for the exercise
\n              of the powers of requisitioning.”\n<\/p>\n
                              We do agree with Mr. Lalit Kishore that no statute or
\n              legislative enactment can be held invalid unless it is made without
\n              legislative competence or it violates the constitutional provisions.
\n              The law on the point is well settled. We need not refer to all the
\n              above judgments relied upon by Mr. Lalit Kishore. We may,
\n              however, refer to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the
\n              Hon\u201fble Supreme Court in the Matter of Ram Krishna Dalmia
\n              (supra). In paragraph 11 and 12 of the judgment, the Court has
\n              culled the principles thus: –\n<\/p>\n
                      The     principle       enunciated        above   has   been
\n                      consistently adopted and applied in subsequent
\n                      cases. The decisions of this              Court     further
\n                      establish-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (a) that a law may be constitutional even though
\n                      it relates to a single individual if, on account of
\n                      some         special     circumstances       or     reasons
\n                      applicable to him and not applicable to others,
\n                      that single individual may be treated as a class
\n                      by himself;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (b) that there is always a presumption in favour
\n 21   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         21 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                      of the constitutionality of an enactment and the
\n                      burden is upon him who attacks it to show
\n                      that there has been a clear transgression of
\n                      the constitutional principles;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (c) that it must             be   presumed           that   the\n                      Legislature         understands                and     correctly\n                      appreciates the need of its                own people, that\n<\/pre>\n
                      its laws are directed to problems made manifest
\n                      by experience           and that its discriminations are
\n                      based on adequate grounds;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (d)     that the Legislature is free to recognise
\n                      degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions
\n                      to those cases where the need is deemed to be the
\n                      clearest ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (e) that in order to sustain the                  presumption
\n                      of constitutionality the Court may take into
\n                      consideration matters             of common knowledge,
\n                      matters of common report,                  the history of the
\n                      times and may assume every state of facts which
\n                      can be conceived existing at the time of
\n                      legislation; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (f) that while good faith and knowledge of the
\n                      existing conditions on the part of a Legislature
\n                      are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the
\n                      face of the law or the surrounding circumstances
\n                      brought to the notice of the Court on which the
\n                      classification may reasonably be regarded as
\n                      based, the        presumption             of   constitutionality
\n                      cannot be carried to the extent of always holding
\n                      that there must be some undisclosed and
\n 22   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         22 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                      unknown          reasons      for         subjecting    certain
\n                      individuals or corporations                    to hostile or
\n                      discriminating legislation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      The above principles will have to be constantly
\n                      borne in mind by the Court when it is called
\n                      upon to adjudge the constitutionality of any
\n                      particular law attacked as discriminatory and
\n                      violative of the equal protection of the laws.
\n                      (12) A close perusal of the decisions of this Court
\n                      in which the above                  principles have been
\n                      enunciated and applied by                 this Court will also
\n                      show that a statute which may come up for
\n                      consideration on a question of its validity under
\n                      Art. 14 of the Constitution may be placed in one
\n                      or other of the following five classes:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (i) A statute may itself indicate the persons or
\n                      things to whom its provisions are intended to
\n                      apply and the basis of the classification of such
\n                      persons or things may appear on the face of the
\n                      statute       or may         be     gathered           from the
\n                      surrounding circumstances known to or brought
\n                      to the notice of the Court.               In determining the
\n                      validity or otherwise             of such     a statute     the
\n                      Court      has         to    examine          whether     such
\n                      classification is or can be reasonably regarded
\n                      as       based upon               some differentia which
\n                      distinguishes such persons or things grouped
\n                      together from those left out of the group and
\n                      whether such differentia has a reasonable
\n                      relation to the object sought to be achieved by
\n 23   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         23 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                      the statute, no matter whether the provisions of
\n                      the statute are intended to                apply only     to a
\n                      particular person or thing or only to a certain
\n                      class of persons or things. Where the Court finds
\n                      that the Classification satisfies the tests, the
\n                      Court will uphold the validity of the law, as it did
\n                      in Chiranjitlal         v.    Union of India (B)(supra),
\n                      State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara (C)<\/a>(supra),
\n                      Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal,<\/a> 1954
\n                      S C R 30: (A I R 1953 S C 404) (1), V. M. Syed
\n                      Mohammad & Company v. State of Andhra,
\n                      1954 S C R 1117: (A I R 1954 S C 314) (J) and
\n                      Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar (A)<\/a> (supra).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (ii) A statute may direct its provisions against
\n                      one individual person or thing or to several
\n                      individual persons or things but, no reasonable
\n                      basis of classification may appear on the face of
\n                      it or be deducible from                   the    surrounding
\n                      circumstances,           or      matters        of   common
\n                      knowledge. In such a case the Court will strike
\n                      down the            law as an instance of naked
\n                      discrimination, as it did in Ameerunnissa Begum
\n                      v. Mahboob Begum,<\/a> 1953 S C R 404: ( A I R 1953
\n                      S C 91) (K) and Ramprasad Narain Sahi v. State
\n                      of Bihar, 1953 S C R 1129: (A I R 1953 S C 215)
\n                      (L).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (iii) A statute may not make any                 classification
\n                      of the persons or things for the purpose of
\n                      applying its provisions but may leave it to the
\n                      discretion of the            Government         to select and
\n 24   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          24 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                      classify persons or things to whom its provisions
\n                      are to apply.              In determining the question of
\n                      the validity or otherwise of such a statute the
\n                      Court will not strike down the law out of hand
\n                      only because no Classification appears on its
\n                      face or because a discretion is given to                      the
\n                      Government            to      make        the     selection    or
\n                      classification but will go on to examine and
\n                      ascertain if the statute has laid                 down        any
\n                      principle or policy for the guidance of the
\n                      exercise of discretion by the Government in the
\n                      matter of the          selection or classification. After
\n                      such scrutiny the Court              will       strike down the
\n                      statute if it does not lay down any principle or
\n                      policy for guiding the exercise of discretion by
\n                      the Government in the matter of selection or
\n                      classification, on the ground that the statute
\n                      provides for the              delegation of arbitrary and
\n                      uncontrolled power to the Government so as to
\n                      enable it to discriminate between persons or
\n                      things similarly situate and that, therefore, the
\n                      discrimination is inherent in the statute itself. In
\n                      such a case the Court will strike down both the
\n                      law as well as the executive action taken under
\n                      such law, as it did in State of West Bengal v.
\n                      Anwar, Ali Sarkar (D)<\/a> (supra), Dwarka Prasad v.
\n                      State of Uttar Pradesh,<\/a> 1954 S C R 803: (A I R
\n                      1954 S C 224) (M) and Dhirendra Kumar
\n                      Mandal         v.             The    Superintendent           and
\n                      Remembrancer of Legal Affairs,<\/a> 1955-1 S C R
\n 25   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         25 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                      224: (A I R 1954 S C 424) (N).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (iv) A statute may not make a classification of the
\n                      persons or things for the purpose of applying its
\n                      provisions and may leave it to the discretion of
\n                      the Government to select and classify the persons
\n                      or things to whom its provisions are to apply but
\n                      may at the same time lay down a policy or
\n                      principle for the guidance of the exercise of
\n                      discretion by the            Government in the matter
\n                      of such        selection or classification, the Court
\n                      will uphold the law as constitutional, as it did
\n                      in Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of
\n                      Saurashtra (E)<\/a> (supra).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (v) A statute may not make a classification of the
\n                      persons or things to whom their provisions are
\n                      intended to apply and leave it to the discretion of
\n                      the Government to select or classify the persons
\n                      or things for applying those provisions according
\n                      to the policy or the principle laid down by the
\n                      statute itself for guidance of the exercise of
\n                      discretion by the Government in the matter of
\n                      such selection or classification.               If          the
\n                      Government           in      making       the   selection   or
\n                      classification does not proceed on or follow such
\n                      policy or principle,            it has been held by this
\n                      Court, e. g., in Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State
\n                      of Saurashtra (E)<\/a> (supra) that in such a case the
\n                      executive action but not the statute should be
\n                      condemned as unconstitutional.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              We do not hesitate to say that the above referred
\n 26   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         26 \/ 28<\/p>\n
              principles are followed till the date. What we are called upon to
\n              examine in this case is the constitutional validity of the impugned
\n              Sections 14A (1) and 14A (2) of the Act of 1935 on the
\n              touchstone of the above referred principles.\n<\/p>\n
                              On perusal of the above referred judgments and the
\n              principles it is apparent that the Courts have frowned upon the
\n              unfettered, unbridled and indiscriminate delegation of power
\n              unguided by the legislative policy or principle to the executive or
\n              some other agency. In the case before us that is the precise
\n              challenge to the impugned Section 14A (1) and 14A (2) of the Act
\n              of 1935.\n<\/p>\n
                              Sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the Act of 1935
\n              provides for election to the Managing Committees of societies to
\n              be held by an authority created for the purpose. We are of the
\n              opinion that the election of the Managing Committee of a society
\n              by an authority created for the purpose in a particular manner is a
\n              mere procedure. Nobody has a vested right to procedure. In the
\n              present case, Section 14A (1) provides that the election of the
\n              Managing Committee of the societies notified under the said sub-
\n              section (1) be conducted by the authority created for the purpose.
\n              Such authority is created under the Act 14 of 2008. The Act 14 of
\n              2008 also provides for the manner in which such election shall be
\n              conducted.\n<\/p>\n
                              Sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the 1935 Act
\n              insofar as it provides that the election of the Managing
\n              Committees of the notified societies be held by the authority
\n              created for the purpose (Election Authority created under the Act
\n              14 of 2008) and sub-section (2) of Section 14A of the Act insofar
\n              as it provides that after the date of the Notification issued under
\n              sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the Act, the election of the
\n 27   Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         27 \/ 28<\/p>\n
              Managing Committees of such notified societies be held in the
\n              manner provided in the said Sections 14A (1) and 14A (2) of the
\n              Act; being procedural do not violate any of the rights accrued to
\n              the writ petitioners. Nor the said provisions contravene the
\n              Constitution.      We,      therefore     reject the   challenge   to the
\n              constitutional validity of Section 14A (1) of the Act of 1935
\n              insofar as it provides that the election of the Managing Committee
\n              of the societies notified under the said sub-section be conducted
\n              by the authority crated for the purpose. We also reject the
\n              challenge to the constitutional validity of sub-section (2) of
\n              Section 14A of the Act of 1935.\n<\/p>\n
                              We, however, agree with Mr. Giri that sub-section
\n              (1) of Section 14A of the Act of 1935 insofar as it provides that
\n              the societies notified under the said sub-section be governed by
\n              the provisions contained in the said Section 14A of the Act of
\n              1935 gives away excessive power to the executive. It is a classic
\n              case of excessive delegation of power talked about by the Hon\u201fble
\n              Supreme Court in the matters of Ram Krishna Dalmia, (A.I.R.
\n              1958 S.C. 538) and of M\/s Devi Das Gopal Krishna, (A.I.R. 1967
\n              S.C. 1895). In our opinion, the State Legislature has, while
\n              conferring power upon the executive to notify a class or classes of
\n              registered societies to be governed by the said Section 14A of the
\n              Act of 1935, failed to provide any guideline or a principle
\n              according to which the executive may exercise the power
\n              conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the Act of 1935.
\n              The said sub-section indeed confers an unguided, unfettered and
\n              indiscriminate power upon the executive to bring any society or a
\n              class or classes of society within the purview of the said Section
\n              14A of the Act. The Legislature ought to lay down some
\n              legislative policy or guiding principle for the executive to follow.\n<\/p>\n
 28        Patna High Court CWJC No.7581 of 2008 (16) dt.23-09-2011<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              28 \/ 28<\/p>\n
                   We, therefore, hold that sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the Act
\n                   of 1935 insofar as it confers power upon the Government
\n                   (executive) to bring a class or classes of registered societies within
\n                   the purview of the said Section by notification in the Official
\n                   Gazette is hit by the principle of excessive delegation of power
\n                   and is vitiated on that ground.\n<\/p>\n
                                   In view of the above discussion, we set aside sub-
\n                   section (1) of Section 14A of the Act of 1935 insofar as it
\n                   empowers the Government to bring the election of the Managing
\n                   Committees of a class or classes of registered societies within the
\n                   purview of the authority created for the purpose by notification in
\n                   the Official Gazette as unconstitutional. Consequently, the
\n                   impugned Notification dated 1st May 2008 issued by the State
\n                   Government and the impugned orders dated 1st May 2008 and 9th
\n                   May 2008 made by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar
\n                   are quashed and set aside. The writ Petitions stand allowed to the
\n                   aforesaid extent only. Interlocutory Application stands disposed
\n                   of.\n<\/p>\n
                                   The parties will bear their own cost.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               (R.M. Doshit, CJ)<\/p>\n
                   Jyoti Saran, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                I agree.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                (Jyoti Saran, J)
\nPawan\/-\n<\/p>\n
A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7581 of 2008 With Interlocutory Application No.2213 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ramzan Ansari son of Md. Yar Ansari, Delegate, Bhabhua Cooperative Cold Storage […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nShashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-25T13:00:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-25T13:00:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":6866,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-25T13:00:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-25T13:00:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-25T13:00:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011"},"wordCount":6866,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011","name":"Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-25T13:00:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shashi-bhushan-prasad-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-23-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232939","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=232939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}