Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 853 (RAJ)

The Peoples Co-operative Society Ltd v. State

2005-03-18

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953. The above Act of 1953 was repealed by the Act of same name of year 1965. The petitioner purchased a immovable property from the Rajasthan Government by sale deed dated 01.03.1988 and established the factory over the above purchased land. Due to some practical difficulties, the petitioner was not in position to run the factory, therefore, decided to dispose of the plant and machinery, and disposed of some of the plant and machinery. The petitioner was entitled for exemption from certain provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1956 in view of the Government order dated 110.1995. The petitioners general house resolved to seek exemption for that purpose and amended Societys Bye-laws and the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chittorgarh vide communication dated 112.1995 granted the exemption as sought by the petitioner. The exemption order is placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure 7 dated 25.03.1998. 3. It appears that after coming into force the Act of 2001, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies informed the society that since the Act of 1965 has been repealed, therefore, exemption granted by the Act of 1965 stands cancelled automatically. The reason given by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the above communication dated 19.09.2003(Annexure 11) is that since there is no corresponding provision in the new Act as which was under Section 139 of the Act of 1965, therefore, the exemption will be in conflict to the provisions of the Act of 2001. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the law is well settled that merely because of repeal of Act by another Act, the orders passed under the Old Act or action taken under the Old Act, are not stood cancelled, rather they are saved, if not have been saved specifically by the repealing Act, by the provisions of the General Clauses Act. However, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the Act of 2001 all orders passed and actions done have been saved by specifically by enacting Section 127 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act of 2001. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Banshidhar & Ors. However, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the Act of 2001 all orders passed and actions done have been saved by specifically by enacting Section 127 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act of 2001. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Banshidhar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, Reported in AIR 1989 SC pg. 1614. Thus, the Honble Supreme Court relying upon the Judgment delivered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. vs. M/s. Shah Sadiq & Sons, reported in AIR 1987 SC Pg. 1217 held as under:- "……..In other words whatever rights are expressly saved by the savings provision stand saved. But, that does not mean that rights which are not saved by the savings provision are extinguished or stand ipso facto terminated by the mere fact that a new statute repealing the old statute is enacted. Rights which have accrued are saved unless they are taken away expressly. This is the principle behind Section 6(c), General Clauses Act, 1897……….." 6. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court the orders passed by the Registrar, Co-operatives Societies (Annexure 11) dated 19.09.2003 and consequential order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Annexue-11 proceeded on assumption that because of coming into force of the Act of 2001 the exemption granted to the petitioner society stands automatically cancelled, deserve to be set-aside. However, it is made clear that the controversy in this writ petition is relating to the limited matter, therefore, this Court has examined the issue relating to the exemption as granted to the petitioner only and the effect of the repeal and saving in respect to the other matters are not subject matter in the present writ petition. 7. The writ petition of the petitioner is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 19.09.2003 is quashed and set-aside. The Municipal Board, Chittorgarh may now proceed in the matter to decide the application of the petitioner for conversion of the land in accordance with law.