AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.V. Hanumanthappa, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 75(5) of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 13 of A.P. Co-operative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 and the order of the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in I.A.No.54/94 in CTA No.202/94 dated 18-8-1994 whereby the Tribunal refused to grant any interim order to the petitioners.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that Section 75(5) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 13 of the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal (Procedure) Rides, 1994, are arbitrary, illegal and arc liable to be struck down. u/s 75(5) of the Act, the Legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function to the Subordinate Legislature or leave it for the purpose of delegated legislature. Rule 13 of the Rules enables the Single Member to hear and dispose of the case at admission stage. Rule 13 of the Rules offends the very purpose of substituting Section 75 of the Act. Therefore, the two provisions and the impugned order are liable to be quashed.
The grounds urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner attacking the Constitutional validity of the said provisions do not make us to come to a conclusion that the said provisions arc arbitrary and illegal and they arc liable to be struck down. On the other hand, the purpose of Section 75(5) of the Act is to see that whoever suffers a money decree, in case he wants to file an appeal, shall pay 50% of the decretal amount. Otherwise, if there is an unconditional stay in respect of moneys belonging to a Co-operative Society, it will be difficult to the Co-operative Society to function. Similar provisions under payment of Wages Act, Workmen''s Compensation Act and Central Excise Act are challenged unsuccessfully. In our view, the restriction imposed u/s 75(5) of the Act is quite sure and reasonable and in no way violates either Article 14 of the Constitution of India or any other provision of the Constitution of India in order to declare the said section an unconstitutional one.
Regarding the petitioners'' attack on the orders passed by the Tribunal is concerned, the attack is against the refusal to grant an interim order. Again, it is not shown as to how the order is arbitrary, illegal and perverse.
The petitioners fail to satisfy us on both counts. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.