JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition No. 1 12 of 1982 filed by Durga Dutt, son of Shri Gopi Ram, along with 14 writ petitions filed by different persons, details of which are given in Schedule-A, annexed with the judgment, are being disposed of by a common order, since common questions of law and facts are involved therein. 2. I am not required to deal in detail the facts of these cases because the learned counsel appearing for various petitioners submit that in these writ petitions they do not want to challenge the Rules made under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1965') or bye-laws and would confine their arguments relating to the challenge to the validity of the Ordinance No. 14 of 1981 (Annexure 1), whereby section 34 of the Act of 1965, has been amended, i.e. after sub-section (7) of the said section, sub-section (7A) has been added which reads as under : "No person shall be eligible for election as a member of a committee if he has continuously remained a member of the Committee of the same society for a period of six years or for two terms, whichever is less, unless a period of three years from the date of expiry or the said of the said period as the case may be, has elapsed." Suffice it to say that the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953 (Old Act No. 4 of 1953) was promulgated with effect from April 1, 1953. This Act was repealed and substituted by the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (Act No. 13 of 1965), which was amended from time to time by various Acts, published in the Rajasthan Gazette. A large number of co-operative Societies have been registered under section 4 of the Act of 1965 and the bye-laws made by them have been approved by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. The State Government approved the model bye-laws which were sent to various co-operative societies and were made appealable. The dates were fixed for holding election for the office of the members of the Committee. The introduction of rew bye-laws was challenged by various petitioners by way of writ petitions. The State Government approved the model bye-laws which were sent to various co-operative societies and were made appealable. The dates were fixed for holding election for the office of the members of the Committee. The introduction of rew bye-laws was challenged by various petitioners by way of writ petitions. One of the grounds mentioned therein was that restrictions on the members of the Co-operative Society for seeking re-election to the office of the membership of the committee could not be placed by executive orders. During the pendency of the writ petitions Ordinance No. 14 of 1981 was promulgated whereby section 34 of the Act of 1974 stood amended. 3. The case of the petitioners is that sub-section (7A) of section 34 of the Act is violative of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The right to form association necessarily in hers to the right to manage and continue associations. Any provision of law which waters down the right to form and continue the association, cannot be upheld as a good law. A critical analysis of the Co-operative movement would reveal that the basic features thereof is to equalise the status of its members. This important feature distinguishes a co-operative society with other associations like private companies or partnership concerns. The right to form an association necessarily includes the right to manage, regulate and superwise the organisation and this right has been denied to the petitioners by insertion of sub-section (7A) in section 34 of the Act vide Government of Rajasthan Ordinance No. 14 of 1980. The Governor of Rajasthan enjoys the same powers which the State legislature enjoys regarding enacting certain laws. However, it does not 1ie within the competence of the Stale legislature or the Government to make it obligatory for a member of an association to associate himself with outsiders and similarly it cannot put an embargo on the right of a member to be elected to the post of the membership of the committee. The restriction placed by the Ordinance is an unreasonable one as the members of the voluntary association have been denied freedom to elect a person of their choice to discharge the functions of the committee. The co-operative society or its members cannot be deprived of the benefit of previous experience gained by the committee for a period exceeding six years. The restriction placed by the Ordinance is an unreasonable one as the members of the voluntary association have been denied freedom to elect a person of their choice to discharge the functions of the committee. The co-operative society or its members cannot be deprived of the benefit of previous experience gained by the committee for a period exceeding six years. It has further been urged that the object of the enactment of the Co-operative Act is to provide economic interest of its members in accordance with the Co- operative principles. The basic feature is that economic amelioration and improvement have to be brought about by the process inherent in the co- operative movement. Introduction of section 34(7A) by the Ordinance has imposed a restriction upon the members which seriously cuts across the root of the co-operative principles. The restrictions placed on the right of the members cannot be justified under sub-clause (4) of Article 19 of the Constitution, because the election of the membership of the committee for the third time or beyond the period of six years has nothing to do with the sovereignty and integrity of India or with public order or morality. The restrictions placed on the citizens to form association such as a co-operative society or elect the members of the committee or the executive can be justified only under sub- clause (4) of Article 19. Placing heavy reliance on (1) Damyanti v. Union of India, 1971 (1) SCC 678 . the learned counsel has urged that the impugned Ordinance is violative of Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. 4. The validity of the Ordinance has also been challenged on the ground of denial of equality before the law and it has been urged that the impugned Ordinance is also violative of the provisions of Article 14. In support or the above contention, reliance has been placed on (2) State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 and (3) R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138 . Learned counsel then argued that the above noted Ordinance, inserting sub-section (7A) in section 34 of the Act, is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the basic features of the Constitution. It has no reasonable nexus or link with the aims and object of the co-operative movement in India. 5. Mr. Learned counsel then argued that the above noted Ordinance, inserting sub-section (7A) in section 34 of the Act, is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the basic features of the Constitution. It has no reasonable nexus or link with the aims and object of the co-operative movement in India. 5. Mr. M.I. Khan, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has urged that the formation of an association is one thing and the regulation of an association for its efficient functioning is a different matter. The Legislature is the best Judge of what is good for its community, by whose suffrage it comes into existence. Reasonableness of a restriction has to be determined in an objective manner and from the stand point of the larger interest of the general public as distinguished from individual interest or abstract consideration. No set pattern of reasonableness which can be applicable to all cases, can be laid down. Learned Government Advocate then urges that the petitioners have a right to form an association. The Ordinance has not placed any restriction or embargo on the right of the persons to form an association. The right to form an association guaranteed by sub-clause (c) of Article 19 does not carry with it a further guarantee. On the other hand sub- clause (4) of Article 19 empowers the State to impose or make any law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality. The concomitant rights of an association or co- operative society, after it is formed, cannot be different from the rights which can be claimed by the individual citizens for whom the co-operative societies are constituted. The reason is that Article 19 grants right to the citizens as such the co-operative society or its members can lay claim to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 19, solely on the basis of there being an aggregate of citizens composing the body. The reason is that Article 19 grants right to the citizens as such the co-operative society or its members can lay claim to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 19, solely on the basis of there being an aggregate of citizens composing the body. The freedom of forming co-operative societies to do business does not include to obtain a recognition by the Government and if the members of the co-operative society want that it should be recognised by the State Government or should be registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, then the conditions imposed for its recognition or the conditions imposed for its recognition or the conditions imposed on a registered co-operative society under the provisions of the Act, cannot be challenged on the around of unreasonable restriction imposed upon the freedom to form an association. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties. Freedom of association is a cherished objective of man's effort in the pursuit of happiness. Several individuals get together and form voluntarily association with a common aim and legitimate purpose of having a community of interest. 7. The co-operative movement in the erstwhile Indian States had already started prior to the formation of United States of Rajasthan. The First Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953, came into force from first April, 1953. The Act had followed the pattern of the Central Act of 1912 and the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. Later on the Rajasthan Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1956, was passed which led to certain amendments in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, allowing the khatedar tenants to transfer the right in whole or in part of his holding in the form of a simple mortgage for the purpose of obtaining loans from the Land Mortgage Banks. In order to have a uniformity of principles in the development of the co-operative movement in India, the Union Ministry of Community Development, Panchayat Raj and Co-operative appointed a "Committee on Co-operative Law" and the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act is based mainly on the recommendations of the above Committee and the model Bill prepared by the committee on Co- operative laws. Provision has been made under section 3 of the Act for the appointment of Registrar and under the Rules made thereunder powers of general supervision over the co-operative societies and to hold inquiries into constitution, working and financial conditions of the society have been given to the Registrar and other Officers. As provided in section 4 of the Act, a society, which has its object the promotion of the economic interest of its members in accordance with the co-operative principles, may be registered under the Act. The Registrar can register the society if he is satisfied that the application conforms to the requirement laid down by the Act and the Rules. The object of the society, seeking registration, must be in accordance with section 4 and may not have an adverse effect on the development of the co-operative movement. Sub-section (7A) of section 34, added by Ordinance No. 14 of 1981, provides that "no person shall be eligible for election as a member of a committee if he has continuously remained a member of the Committee of the same society for a period of six years or for two terms, whichever is less, unless a period of three years from the date of expiry of the said period or the said terms, as the rule may be, has elapsed." Thus, under this sub-section, as already noticed, the restriction on consecutive membership in a committee for a period exceeding six years is imposed. Section 47 provides that Government may subscribe directly to share capital of a co-operative society with limited liability. section 48 makes provision for providing money by the Government to the co-operative society for the purchase of shares in other co-cometary societies with limited liabilities. Section 59 provides that the Government may give loans or make advances to co-operative societies; guarantee the repayment of principal and payment of interest on debentures, issued by a co-operative society and may give financial assistance in any other forms, including subsidies, to any co-operative society. Thus, under the Act certain special privileges have been granted to the co-operative societies, formed and registered under the Act and certain restrictions and obligations also have been imposed in the matter of formation and working of the societies. Thus, under the Act certain special privileges have been granted to the co-operative societies, formed and registered under the Act and certain restrictions and obligations also have been imposed in the matter of formation and working of the societies. The intention of the legislature in enacting sub-section (7A) of section 34 is to prevent growth of vested interest in co-operative societies by putting up a brake in the continuity in office for more than six years. By experience the State Government and the legislative authorities have learnt that influential section of the society consisting of ex-landlords and rich peasants manage to get themselves elected as members of the committee and to continue therein as a result of which the weaker section of the society does not get the societies' benefit. The big landlords and rich farmers become real beneficiaries. This has led to the insertion of sub-section (7A) to section 34 of the Act. I find my self in disagreement with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that is the fundamental right of the general body to choase as to who should manage the affairs of the society and that right is being taken away by means of sub-section (7A) of section 34 of the Act, by restricting the membership of the committee for a person to two successive terms or six years. Such a restriction would amount to an abridgement of the right to form an association, guaranteed under Article 19(1) (c). The only restricts which can be imposed has been provided in clause (4) of Article 19 and the restriction imposed on a person from being a member of the committee after the expiry of two successive terms or six years not having anything to do with any one of the limitations contained in clause (4) of Article 19 sub-section ( 7A) is unconstitutional. It should be noted that the Act of 1965 no where provides that each and every society must be registered. Sub-section (7A) does not provide that new members without the consent of the existing members, should be inducted in a co-operative society. It is the sweet will of the members of the co-operative society to get it registered under the Act and it is registered when its objects are in conformity with the provisions of section 4 of the Act. Sub-section (7A) does not provide that new members without the consent of the existing members, should be inducted in a co-operative society. It is the sweet will of the members of the co-operative society to get it registered under the Act and it is registered when its objects are in conformity with the provisions of section 4 of the Act. If a society wanes to take advantage of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, it may get itself registered. Thus a society, which is registered under the Act, is a creature of the statute. formed under the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1965. It is under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under and the bye-laws was made in accordance with them, that the committee is constituted and the appointments of its members are made. The right the petitioners to contest the election for the membership of the committee emanates only it of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws. The right to become the member of the committee is not a common law or a general right given to a person to form an association, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution. As already noted above, the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, under which the societies have been formed, confer certain rights and privileges on the societies and their members and also imposes certain obligations and restrictions on the societies and their members. A person claiming a right under those provisions is also bound by any restrictions imposed thereunder. There is no compulsion for a person to form a co- operative society or to become its member or to become the member of the society formed under the Act and registered under section 4 of the Act. A society can also be formed as a right guaranteed under Article 19(1),(c) without getting it registered under the Act, but the only disability for such a society is that unless it gets itself registered under the Act, it will not get special benefits and privileges, granted by and under the provisions of the Act. The restriction on the consecutive membership in the committee in question applies only to societies-registered under the Act. It has no application to societies formed and not registered under the provisions of the Act. The restriction on the consecutive membership in the committee in question applies only to societies-registered under the Act. It has no application to societies formed and not registered under the provisions of the Act. If a co-operative society is formed and is registered under the Act and its members claim special privileges and advantages conferred by the Act, the Rules and the Bye-laws, framed thereunder, they cannot turn round and say that they are not bound by any restrictions imposed by some provisions of the Act or the Rules or the Bye-laws introduced in the interest of the general good of the community, and fair administration and efficient working of the society. 8. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have been restricted from forming a co-operative society or there was any compulsion on them to form a society or to become members of such a society, registered under the Act. Simply because some restrictions are imposed in connection with the working of the society, that does not amount to curtailing freedom of forming a society. Restraining a person from seeking his election for the third term or for a period exceeding six years as a member of the committee, does not amount to take away the freedom to form an association. There is no restriction of becoming a member of the committee once again with an interval of three years in between one can again become a member of the committee. The Legislature, in its wisdom, thought that such a restriction was necessary for the reason already mentioned above, to prevent vested rights getting root in the society, which is neither democratic nor healthy for proper functioning of a co-operative body. 9. The case Smt. Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India (Supra) strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is totally distinguishable with the facts of the case in hand. In Damyanti's case the validity of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962, was in question. Under section 4(4) of that Act, apart from persons who are members of the Society, some more members were added without giving any option to the existing members of the society to elect or refuse to elect them as members. It was the right they possessed under the constitution of the society itself. Under section 4(4) of that Act, apart from persons who are members of the Society, some more members were added without giving any option to the existing members of the society to elect or refuse to elect them as members. It was the right they possessed under the constitution of the society itself. The Supreme Court on the special facts of that case, observed that the Act did not merely regulate the administration of the affairs of the society, but what it did was to alter the composition of the Society itself. The right to form an association implied that the persons forming the association had also their right to continue to be associated with those whom they voluntarily admitted in the association. Thus, on the special facts of that case, the provisions of law by which some members were added to the society, without any option being available to the existing members of the society, to elect or refuse to elect them as members was held to be violative of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. In the case on hand the only restriction imposed under sub-section (7A) of section 34 of the Act is that a member of the committee cannot continue for a period exceeding six years or for a third term, without gap in between. This is not a provision which restricts the right of continuing the association, with its composition. Therefore, so long as there is no impediment to form an association or to become a member or having become a member to continue or not as a member of the association, no provision of law can be said to infringe the fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Simply because a particular provision seeks to regulate the functioning and administration of a co-operative society in its day to day working, it does not mean that the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) has been infringed. Sub-section (7A) of section 34 of the Act in no way curtails the right of a person to form a co-operative society or to continue it. 10. Sub-section (7A) of section 34 of the Act does not deny equality before the law or equal protection of the law. The legislature has taken care to reasonably classify persons who can seek election to the membership of the committee. 10. Sub-section (7A) of section 34 of the Act does not deny equality before the law or equal protection of the law. The legislature has taken care to reasonably classify persons who can seek election to the membership of the committee. Persons who have already remained in office for a period of six years or who have been consecutively elected twice belong to a well defined class and as such the classification is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that the law does not apply to other persons similarly situated. The very basis of the classification is reasonable. It serves the object of the legislature to provide opportunity to other persons more especially to the weaker section of the society for becoming the member of the committee and to restrict the creation of vested interest, so that the object provided under section 4 of the Co-operative Societies Act may be adequately fulfilled. This under no stretch of imagination can be as unreasonable classification. 11. It must be remembered that a co-operative society is a society which has as its object the promotion of the economic interest of its members in accordance with co-operative principles. Experience shows that it is only system of voluntary organisation, suitable for poor people. Co-operative society is a form of organisation, wherein persons voluntarily associate together as human beings, on a basis of equality for the promotion of the economic interests of themselves and this purpose is very well served by insertion of sub- section (7A) of section 34 of the Act vide Ordinance No. 14 of 1981. 12. Before parting with these cases, I would like to observe the it these cases have been argued only regarding the validity of the Ordinance No. 14 of 1981, and as such any observation made in this judgment will in no way adversely affect the rights of the parties regarding the validity of the Rules or bye-laws of a particular society. 13. The result of the above discussion is that Ordinance No. 14 of 1981 is not violative of Article 19 or 14 of the Constitution. There is no merit in these writ petitions and they are hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. *******