Judgment : The President of Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, Rajapalayam has challenged G.O. (Ms.) No. 236, Animal Husbandary and Fisheries (MP.II) Department, dated 211. 1999, by which, the Government have rejected the appeal, dated 10. 1998, against the order of the Commissioner/Registrar for Milk Production and Dairy Development Department, Chennai, third respondent, dated 29. 1989, by which, the said respondent has issued directions, purporting to be under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, for conversion of the said Milk Supply Society, in which, the petitioner is a member to a Consumer Society. 2. According to the petitioner, the Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, Rajapalayam, was formed with the principle object to enable its members to maintain good milk animals to arrange for the purchase of the milk produced by the members of the Society and sell them to general public, thereby, acting as an agent of the members of the Society and for general upliftment and welfare of its members. Consistent with the objectives, the Society had been functioning for nearly seven years. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Society has been arranging for loans to be given to its members from Nationalised Banks for the purchase of milch cattle, besides giving cattle feeds on credit basis. .3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the area of operation of the Society extends to the whole of Rajapalayam Town, apart from the neighbouring villages extending to 18 Kms. The Society has 17 branches in Rajapalayam Town and 35 branches in the neighbouring villages. Milk produced by the members within the area of operation of Society is procured through its employees at various branches, brought to the Headquarters and distributed to the general public through its employees. .According to the petitioner, the milk so procured and supplied by the Society is of high quality, conforming to the requirements and standards prescribed by the authorities. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that in 1978, the Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No.1000 Agriculture Department, dated 6. 1978, to effect that it had decided that the organisation pattern for the development of the Dairy Industry in Tamil Nadu should be based on “Anand pattern” of producers’ Society at the village level, District level and ultimately at the State level. No.1000 Agriculture Department, dated 6. 1978, to effect that it had decided that the organisation pattern for the development of the Dairy Industry in Tamil Nadu should be based on “Anand pattern” of producers’ Society at the village level, District level and ultimately at the State level. By the said Government Order, the Government had decided that the existing traditional milk supply societies should be converted into producers societies in an orderly way, avoiding financial and administrative dislocation. In the said order, the Government have also expressed the decision that organised societies should be formed to handle only distribution of milk. 5. Thepetitioner has further submitted that though the above said orders were issued in 1978, no effective steps were taken to implement the said G.O. The only action that had been taken by the concerned authorities in this regard was to ask the societies to send a proposal approved by their General Body to convert themselves into a milk producers Co-operative Societies. Insofar as the petitioner’s Society is concerned, the general body of the Society had unanimously resolved to turn down the proposed and requested the authorities to enable the Society to continue as a producers-cum-supply Society. 6. While bethe case, by impugned order, dated 29. 1989, Commissioner/Registrar for Milk Production and Dairy Development Department, third respondent herein, issued directions to Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, Rajapalayam, purporting to be issued under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, directing conversion of the said Society into a milk consumers co-operative Society. By the said order, the Society has been prohibited from purchasing milk and further directed to function only as a milk consumers Co-operative Society, and supply milk to the consumers to be purchased by the Society, from Kamarajar District Co-operative Milk Producers Co-operative Union. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.13864 of 1989 and this Court, while entertaining the said; Writ Petition, by order, dated 110. 1989, in W.M.P. No.20008 of 1989, has granted interim stay of the operation of the said order. Finally, the Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 19. 1998, directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal. The appeal to the Government, dated 10. 1998/has been rejected by G.O (Ms.) No.236, Animal Husbandary and Fisheries (MP.II) Department, dated 211. 1989, in W.M.P. No.20008 of 1989, has granted interim stay of the operation of the said order. Finally, the Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 19. 1998, directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal. The appeal to the Government, dated 10. 1998/has been rejected by G.O (Ms.) No.236, Animal Husbandary and Fisheries (MP.II) Department, dated 211. 1999 on the ground that the Society cannot claim any fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and that there is no deprivation of the right guaranteed under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India and that the Society will not be liquidated by mere conversion from Milk Supply Co-operative Society to Milk Consumer Society. In these circumstances, the petitioner, being the President of the Society, in his individual and on behalf of the members of the Society, has come forward to prefer the present writ petition for the relief as stated supra. .8. Taking this Court through the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1000, Agriculture Department, dated 6. 1978, Mr. Kovi Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Government of Tamil Nadu, have decided to convert the traditional supply Society, into that of a producers Society or Union, as the case may be, and decided that consumers Societies may be organised for conversion of the existing several units, from the year 1978 to 1989, no effective steps were taken by the Government for 11 years and the said Government Order, being directory in nature, the respondents, cannot compel the Society, in which, the petitioner is a member to convert into a producer or consumer Society, contrary to the objects of the Society, for which, it is formed. 9. Inviting the attention of this Court to the unanimous resolution passed by the Society, to which, the petitioner is a member, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the members of the Society have a statutory right to form a particular Society, which is permissible under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder with specific objectives. In the present case, Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society was formed with the working arrangement of purchasing milk produced by the members of the Society and sell them to general public and for the up-liftment and welfare of the members, as one of the objectives and by virtue of the impugned orders, the very basic foundation of the Society, would be set at naught and that would be an infringement of the rights guaranteed to the members of the Society under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned orders are unconstitutional and arbitrary. 10. It is the further case of the petitioner that by impugned order, dated 211. 1999, the third respondent has virtually prohibited the society from purchasing milk from any quarters and to sell them to general public. According to him, so as long as the objects and purpose of the existing Society are lawful and in accordance with statutory provisions under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, rules framed thereunder and the Bye-laws of the Co-operative Society, as approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai, the impugned orders purported to have been issued under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, would alter the nature and category of the Society. 11. Referring to Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, which deals with the classification and categorisation of the societies and Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, Rajapalayam Milk Supply Society is one of the dairy societies registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when registration and existence of the Supply Society is permissible under the statutory provisions, the respondents 1 and 3 do not have jurisdiction to issue any directions, under the guise of exercising power under Section 181 of the Act, which would alter the character and category of the Society, if such direction has to be enforced, then it would liquidate the very existence of the Society in which, the petitioner is a member. 12. Reverting back to G.O.Ms.No.1000, Agriculture Department, dated 6. 12. Reverting back to G.O.Ms.No.1000, Agriculture Department, dated 6. 1978, and in particular, to paragraph 4, which states that the consumer societies may be organised by conversion of existing supply union to handle only distribution of milk and he submitted that the said order is only directory in nature and the impugned orders are even violative of above said G.O. 13. Referring to the factors contained in Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and also the contents of G.O.Ms. No.263, Animal Husbandry (Fisheries) Department, dated 211. 1999, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the absence of any materials indicating the subjective satisfaction of the Government or the Registrar of C0-operative Societies, Chennai, warranting a decision said to have been in public interest, the order of the third respondent, directing conversion of the Society, in which, the petitioner is a member into a milk consumer Society, is arbitrary and nothing but colourable exercise of power. 14. Placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Karvanagar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mariy Adit (2000) 9 SCC 295 and inviting the attention of this Court to the objects of the present Society, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the guise of issuing a direction under Section 181 of the Act, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, has no jurisdiction to alter the basic structure of the Co-operative Society and whenever the Government or the Registrar, exercises their statutory power of issuing any directions to alter the Society, that will have the effect of amending the bye-laws and in such circumstances, the directions issued should satisfy the requirements of the interest of the Society. According to him, when the members of the Society have unanimously resolved not to accept the suggestion for conversion, the impugned orders compelling the Society to alter its character, is not in the interest of the Society and therefore, they are liable to be set aside. 15. According to him, when the members of the Society have unanimously resolved not to accept the suggestion for conversion, the impugned orders compelling the Society to alter its character, is not in the interest of the Society and therefore, they are liable to be set aside. 15. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Sambandam v. Mutheeswarar (2000) 3 MLJ 674 , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the Registrar can issue directions only if he has satisfied that (i) in the public interest, or (2) for the purpose of securing proper implementation of Co-operative production, etc., or (3) to secure the proper management of the business, of any class of registered societies generally, or (4) for preventing the affairs of the registered Society, being conducted in a manner, detrimental to the interest of the members or depositors of the Society. 116. Inviting the attention of this Court to the allegations made in the impugned order of the third respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said allegations have been made only for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction under Section 181 of the Act and that when the Society had not come to any adverse notice for the past 11 years, ever since G.O.Ms.No.1000, was issued, the impugned order reflects mala fide on the part of the third respondent. He also submitted that any directions to be issued under Section 181 of the Act can only be with reference to the statutory provisions of the Act and that the powers of the third respondent are not unfettered and they cannot travel beyond the statutory provisions. 117. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submitted that there are nearly 170 persons, working in the Society and implementation of the impugned orders would result in loss of employment of the members of the Society. He also submitted that the Society is selling the milk only at a lesser cost and no complaints have been received from any quarters. .18. He also submitted that the Society is selling the milk only at a lesser cost and no complaints have been received from any quarters. .18. Referring to Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, which confers powers on the Registrar, to direct amendment of bye-laws, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said power can be exercised only for the purpose of altering the area of operation or for the purpose of improving the services rendered by it or for any other purpose, specified in the rules, after consulting in the manner prescribed, the Board and the financial banks, if any, to which, the societies are affiliated and in such circumstances, the Society should have been given a notice, in writing to show cause as to why the amendment should not be made. 119. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the impugned directions are stated to have been issued under Section 181 of the Act, in effect, they alters its bye-laws and therefore, the Society ought to have been given a statutory notice and failure to follow the procedure, has resulted in violation of Section 12 of the Act and also the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that when the above said points were placed before the appellate authority, the same were not properly considered in the light of statutory provisions. According to him, the impugned directions are contrary to the statutory provisions and therefore, they are liable to be set aside. 120. Based on the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to Government (Milk), Animal Husbandary & Fisheries Department, Chennai, second respondent, Ms. D. Geetha, learned Additional Government Pleader, taking this Court through G.O. (Ms.). No.1000, Agriculture Department, dated 6. 1978, submitted that way back in the year 1978, the Government took a policy decision to the effect that the Dairy Industry should be based on Anand pattern of producers and consumers societies, which is a role-model adopted throughout the country. Therefore, as per the policy decision, in every village, there should be a producers Society and Union in the District, having producers societies as its members and ultimately, there should be a State Federation, having the District Unions as its members. 21. Therefore, as per the policy decision, in every village, there should be a producers Society and Union in the District, having producers societies as its members and ultimately, there should be a State Federation, having the District Unions as its members. 21. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that as per the policy decision of the Government, all existing traditional supply Societies and Unions should be converted into producers Societies or Unions in an orderly way, avoiding financial and administrative dislocation. She further submitted that Consumer Societies were directed to be organised by converting the existing supply societies and unions to handle only distribution of milk. She also submitted that when the policy decision of the Government issued in 1978, has not been challenged by the writ petitioner, the consequential directions issued by the third respondent, cannot be challenged in this writ petition and therefore, it is not open to the member of a Co-operative Society to advance arguments, testing the policy decision of the Government. .22. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has got ample powers to issue any directions in public interest or for the purpose of securing proper implementation of Co-operative production and other developmental programmes approved or undertaken by the Government. She further submitted that such directions can also be issued generally to all registered societies or a particular registered Society. Therefore, when the policy decision taken by the Government, a notified in G.O. Ms. No.1000, Agriculture Department, dated 6. 1978, is given effect throughout the State and when the Society has not challenged the decisions, a member of a Society has no statutory or legal right to challenge the consequential order. According to her, the directions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai, satisfy the conditions stated in Section 181 of the Act and therefore, there is no arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the Registrar. 23. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that except the petitioner’s Society, all other Societies in the State of Tamil Nadu have themselves converted either as Consumers or Producers societies and that the petitioner alone has failed to implement the directions. 23. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that except the petitioner’s Society, all other Societies in the State of Tamil Nadu have themselves converted either as Consumers or Producers societies and that the petitioner alone has failed to implement the directions. She further submitted that implementation of the Government order would not in any way affect the interests of the Society, in which, the petitioner is a member. She also submitted that when all the supply societies in the State of Tamil Nadu, have converted themselves into the consumers or producers Societies and when they are functioning without any detriment to the members of the Society, the contention of the petitioner that there would be a likelihood of loss of employment to many employees of the society is not supported by any materials and that the same has to be rejected. 24. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that though the members of the Society have passed an unanimous resolution not to accept the suggestion of converting the Society into a consumer Society, the decision taken by the members will not have any legal sanction to override the statutory directions issued under Section 181 of the Act. 25. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that a Society, which is a creature of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, cannot claim rights and freedom guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, as the said rights are confined only to natural persons, who are citizens and that a Co-operative Society, not being a natural citizen, cannot claim any constitutional right. She therefore submitted that there is no constitutional violation in issuing the impugned orders. 26. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that by the impugned orders, the petitioner’s supply Society has been directed to convert into milk consumer Society and that will not amount to liquidation of the Society nor it will come under the ambit of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which deals with deprivation of property. According to her, ever after the change, the Union can procure milk on quality basis and that distribution of the same, could very well be done by the consumer Society. 27. According to her, ever after the change, the Union can procure milk on quality basis and that distribution of the same, could very well be done by the consumer Society. 27. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the impugned directions are issued under Section 181 of the Act in public interest and to secure proper implementation of Cooperative production and other developmental programmes undertaken by the Government and also the interests of the consumers and therefore, they cannot be termed as arbitrary. .28. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the rate of one liter cow milk, containing the prescribed limit of fat and SNF, and Buffalo milk sold by Rajapalayam Milk Supply Cooperative Society was on the higher side. She further submitted that public have welcomed the decision of the Government, for conversion of Supply Societies into that of consumer or producers Societies and it is her further contention that hygienic milk would be supplied and adulteration of milk would be prevented by sale of quality milk in sachets. 29. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the area of operation of Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society is 18 kms around Rajapalayam Municipal Town. Many revenue villages are situated within the area of operation of the said Society. She further submitted that the milk producers/members of Rajapalayam Milk Supply Co-operative Society can form a Milk Producers Co-operative Societies and that milk would be procured from the said Milk Producers Cooperative Society by the Virudhunagar District. Milk Producers Cooperative Societies could not be formed in the area of operation of the said Society. 30. Refuting the contentions of the writ petitioner that there are chances of the employees of the society losing their employment, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that Rajapalayam Milk Supply Co-operative Society supplies milk to the consumers through 52 Depots and that there are 133 employees working in the said Society. In order to safeguard the interests of the employees, the Society was given notice under Section 12 of the Act to make an amendment to the by-laws. As the Society has failed to adhere to the notice, directions were issued under Section 181 of the Act. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned directions are issued only to safeguard the interests of the members of the consuming public and also considering the larger interest involved in setting up “Anand pattern” of the societies at three different levels. As the Society has failed to adhere to the notice, directions were issued under Section 181 of the Act. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned directions are issued only to safeguard the interests of the members of the consuming public and also considering the larger interest involved in setting up “Anand pattern” of the societies at three different levels. 31. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that considering the larger public interest vis-a-vis interest of the members of the Society, the former should prevail and therefore, the members of the registered Society has no locus standi to question the policy decision of the Government. For the above said reasons, she submitted that the contentions of the members of the Society that it would be liquidated, are liable to be rejected. .32. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that when thousands of such societies were transformed into the consumer societies, there was no such compliant whatsoever and therefore, the apprehension of Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society is unreasonable and liable to be rejected. She also submitted that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case, in view of the policy decision of the Government. For the above said reasons, she prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. .Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 33. Before adverting to the facts of the case, a cursory look at the few provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder is required. Chapter 2 of the Act deals with Registration. Section 12 of the Act deals with the power of the Registrar to direct amendment of the by-laws and it reads as follows: “12. Chapter 2 of the Act deals with Registration. Section 12 of the Act deals with the power of the Registrar to direct amendment of the by-laws and it reads as follows: “12. Power to direct amendment of by-laws.-(1) Where the Registrar is satisfied that for the purpose of altering the area of operation of a registered Society or for the purpose of improving the services rendered by it or for any other purpose specified in the rules, an amendment of the by-laws is necessary, he may, after consulting in the manner prescribed the board of the financing bank, if any, to which the Society is affiliated, by notice in writing, call upon the Society to show cause, within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the amendment should not be made: Provided that if the board of the financing bank does not communicate its Comments within sixty days of the receipt of the communication from the Registrar in this regard it shall be deemed that the board of the financing bank has no Comments to make on the amendment proposed to the bylaws under this sub-section. .(2) If, within the time specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), the registered Society fails to make the amendment, the Registrar may, after giving the Society an opportunity of making its representations, register the amendment and issue to the Society a copy of such amendment. .(3) Any amendment of the by-laws registered under sub-section (2) shall have the same effect as an amendment of the by-laws registered under Section 11 unless the registration is cancelled in pursuance of a decision in appeal.” 34. Section 181 of the Act deals with the power of the Registrar to give directions in the public interest and it reads as follows: “181. Section 181 of the Act deals with the power of the Registrar to give directions in the public interest and it reads as follows: “181. Power of Registrar to give directions in the public interest, etc.-(1) Where the Registrar is satisfied that in the public interest or for the purpose of securing proper implementation of Cooperative production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by the Government or to secure the proper management of the business of any class of registered societies generally, or for preventing the affairs of any registered Society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members, or of the depositors or the creditors thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any class of registered societies generally or to any registered Society or registered societies in particular, he may, by order issue directions to them from time to time, and all registered societies or the registered Society concerned, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions. (2) The Registrar may, by order, modify or cancel any directions issued under sub-section (1), and in modifying or cancelling such directions may impose such conditions as he may deem fit.” 35. Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 180 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Rule 11 deals with the purpose for which, the Registrar may direct amendment of by laws and the manner of consulting the financing bank under Section 12 of the Act. The said rule is extracted hereunder: “11. Purposes for which the Registrar may direct amendment of by-laws and the manner of consulting the financing bank under Section 12.-(1) The Registrar may direct amendment of by-laws under sub-section (1) of Section 12, for the following other purposes, namely: .(a) securing proper and efficient management of the business of any Society or class or category of societies; .(b) securing proper implementation of Co-operative production or other development programme approved or undertaken by the Government; .(c) preventing the affairs of any Society from being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members or the depositors or the creditors thereof. .(2) Before calling upon any Society to show cause why an amendment of by-laws shall not be made under sub-section (1) of Section 12, the Registrar shall furnish to the board of the financing bank, if any, to which the Society is affiliated, a copy of the proposed amendment of by-laws together with a statement of the reasons for the amendment and require the board of the financing bank to communicate its comments on the proposed amendment. Before proceeding further with the proposed amendment, the Registrar shall consider the comments, if any, of the board of such financing bank.” 36. Rule 19 speaks about the conditions and procedure conversion of a Society into a different class or category. 37. Taking note of the progress of Dairy Development Programmes under the Department of Dairy Development and the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation and the scheme, “Operation Flood I” and of the fact that a large number of Producers Societies were organised on the pattern of such societies in Anand, Kaira District, Gujarat State, the Government of Tamil Nadu have decided that Dairy Development Programmes must be organised on an extensive and intensive basis throughout the State. 38. In the above context, the Government have thought it fit to issue appropriate orders, laying down the policy to be followed, with regard to the organisational arrangement for promotion of dairy development and to specify the role of Dairy Development Programme under the Department of Dairy Development and Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation. After considering the Anand Pattern of Producer’s Society at the village level, a Union of Producers Societies at the level of a district (or parts of a district) and ultimately, a State Federation of Producer’s Union, the Government have decided that the existing traditional supply societies and Union should be converted into producer’s societies or unions in an orderly way, avoiding financial and administrative dislocation. The Consumer Societies were directed to be organised by conversion of existing supply unions to handle only distribution of milk. In the light of the policy decision taken by the Government to convert the existing supply societies and unions into the producer’s societies and unions, the Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms.No.1000, Agriculture Department, dated 6. 1978, as follows: “5. Government direct that it shall inter alia be the responsibility of the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corpon. In the light of the policy decision taken by the Government to convert the existing supply societies and unions into the producer’s societies and unions, the Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms.No.1000, Agriculture Department, dated 6. 1978, as follows: “5. Government direct that it shall inter alia be the responsibility of the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corpon. In Co-operation with Department of Dairy Development, to .(i) Establish and promote Anand Pattern Producer Societies at the village level and producer’s Unions at the district (or part district level); .(ii) Assist in the promotion and establishment of new Dairy plants feed mixing plants, plants, for the production of milk products, etc., for and on behalf of the producers union; (iii) Procure and market milk and milk products, inside or outside the State which cannot be handled by the Unions or the Federation. (iv) in particular, market fluid milk in the major cities of the State such as Madras, Madurai, Coimbatore, etc., till such time as the producer’s Unions develop the ability to market these. 6. The Commissioner for Milk productions and Dairy Development will continue to function as Registrar of Milk Co-operative Societies with responsibility for the establishment nurturing promote on and regulation of all milk Co-operative societies and Unions. 7. In the light of the decisions now taken all milk Cooperative societies to be organised in future will be producers societies based on the Anand Pattern. 8. The Commissioner of Milk production and Dairy Development and the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation are requested to take expeditious action for the implementation of these decisions and to submit detailed proposals to Government, wherever necessary for implementing these decisions.” 39. No doubt, no detailed reasons have been furnished in the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents. The fact remains that there is no change in the policy decision of the Government. Perusal of the order, dated 29. 1989, passed by the Commissioner/Registrar for Milk Production and Dairy Development Department, Chennai, the third respondent herein, shows that in implementation of the policy decision of the Government as laid down in G.O. Ms. The fact remains that there is no change in the policy decision of the Government. Perusal of the order, dated 29. 1989, passed by the Commissioner/Registrar for Milk Production and Dairy Development Department, Chennai, the third respondent herein, shows that in implementation of the policy decision of the Government as laid down in G.O. Ms. No.1000 and since Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, Rajapalayam, has passed a resolution, refusing to give its consent for conversion, the third respondent herein, by virtue of the power conferred on him, has issued above said orders under Section 181 of the Act, against which, the petitioner filed a Wirt Petition in W.P. No.13864 of 1989, in his individual capacity as a member as well as in the capacity of President of Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, Rajapalayam, contending inter alia that, by conversion, of the milk supply society to milk consumer Society, there would be an infringement of Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. On this aspect, the respondents therein, while opposing the maintainability of the above Wirt Petition, have contended that the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India are extended only to natural persons, who are citizens of India and that Co-operative Societies, not being natural citizens, cannot claim any right under Article 19(1)(g) and on that score, prayed for dismissal of the said writ petition. 40. Pleadings disclose that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, in his personal capacity as a member of the Society and also as a President of the Society on the basis of the authorisation sated to have been given by the other members of the Society, which is supported by a document affixed at Page 38 of the typed set of papers filed in this writ petition. 41. Before addressing the issue as to whether amendments are warranted in the back drop of the facts, it is necessary to decide as to whether the order, dated 29. 1989 issued by the third respondent, would fall within Section 181 of the Act. 41. Before addressing the issue as to whether amendments are warranted in the back drop of the facts, it is necessary to decide as to whether the order, dated 29. 1989 issued by the third respondent, would fall within Section 181 of the Act. Before issuing a direction under Section 181 of the Act, the Registrar should be satisfied that the said directions are in the public interest or for the purpose of securing proper implementation of Co-operative production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by the Government or to secure the proper management of the business of any class of registered societies generally, or for preventing the affairs of any registered Society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members, or of the depositors or the creditors thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any class of registered societies generally or to any registered Society or registered societies in particular and if he is satisfied, he may, by order, issue directions to them from time to time, and all registered societies or the registered Society concerned, as the case may be, are bound to comply with such directions. The Registrar may, by order, modify or cancel any directions issued under sub-section (1) of the said Section and while modifying or cancelling such directions, he may impose such conditions, as he deems fit. 42. Preamble to G.O.Ms.No.1000, Agriculture Department, dated 6. 1978, would itself show that the Government, after taking into consideration the Dairy Development Programmes under the Department of Dairy Development and the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation, large number of Milk supply societies and Milk supply Unions, Scheme known as “Operation Flood I” and the large number of producers societies, organised on the pattern of Anand, Kaira District, Gujarat State , have decided that the Dairy Development Programmes must be organised on an extensive and intensive basis throughout the State. The G.O., also explicitly makes it clear that the above mentioned scheme should be implemented as part of the proposed operation Flood II project of the Government of India and therefore, a policy decision has been taken, with regard to organisational arrangements for promotion of Dairy Development and to specify the role of the Department of Dairy Development and the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation. The above Government Order also sets out the responsibility of the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation with Department of Dairy Development, (i) to establish and promote Anand Pattern Producer Societies at the village level and producer’s Unions at the district (or part district level); and (ii) Assist in the promotion and establishment of new Dairy plants feed mixing plants, plants, for the production of milk products, etc., for and on behalf of the producers union. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development will continue to function as Registrar of Milk Co-operative Societies with responsibility for the establishment nurturing, promote on and regulation of all milk Cooperative societies and Unions. The Government Order also makes it clear that all the milk Co-operative societies to be organised in future, will be producers societies based on the Anand Pattern. 43. The decision of the Government to set up three tier societies, viz., Anand Pattern of Producer’s Society at the village level, a Union of Producers Societies at the level of a district (or parts of a district) and State Federation of Producer’s Union, to have a uniform system of procurement, sales, etc., through out the State of Tamil Nadu, is certainly in public interest and it also satisfies Condition No.2 of Section 181 of the Act, which states that the Registrar can issue directions for the purpose of securing proper implementation of Co-operative production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by the Government. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner, a member of Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, Rajapalayam, that the Registrar has no power or authority to issue a direction, under Section 181 of the Act and that the directions, dated 29. 1989, do not satisfy the conditions for exercise of the powers, cannot be countenanced in law. The impugned order, dated 211. 1999, is very much a direction issued under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and a bare reading of Section 181 makes it clear that all the registered societies, for which, such directions are issued, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions. 44. The next question to be considered is whether the directions, dated 29. 1989 are warranted. 44. The next question to be considered is whether the directions, dated 29. 1989 are warranted. Reading of the said order shows that when Rajapalayam Society was asked to sent its proposals for conversion, based on the resolution said to have been passed by the members, the Society has refused to give its consent. As the action of the Society was found to be contrary to the policy decision of the Government and when the policy decision was not implemented by the said Society, as per the mandatory provisions, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai, has further issued directions, dated 23. 2000, which reads that all the registered Societies are bound to comply with the directions. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petition that no proper reasons have been assigned for invoking Section 181 of the Act, cannot be accepted. 45. Now, as this Court has considered the necessity for exercise of powers under Section 181 of the Act, directing Rajapalayam Milk Cooperative Society, Rajapalayam, to which, the petitioner is a member of the Society to convert the said supply Society into a producer’s Society, it is necessary to examine the other contentions, as to whether the order impugned has been issued following the procedure contemplated under the statutory provisions. As per Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, after registration of a society, the Registrar shall classify and categories the societies into one or the other of the following classes and categories of societies, according to the principal object provided in its by-laws 5. Credit Society (i) Agricultural Service Society (ii) Land Development Bank (iii) Financial Bank .(iv) Urban Bank .(v) Urban Credit Society .(vi) Employees Credit Society 46. Rule 19 enables a Society to convert itself into a society of a class or category different from the one to which it belongs. Reading of the above said rule, makes it clear that a Society registered under a particular category can convert itself into a Society of class or category, different from one, which it belongs earlier. .47. In State of Maharashtra v. Karvanagar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mariy Adit (supra) the respondents therein, was a tenant-ownership Co-operative housing Society within the meaning of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. .47. In State of Maharashtra v. Karvanagar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mariy Adit (supra) the respondents therein, was a tenant-ownership Co-operative housing Society within the meaning of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Its object was to allot a plot of land to each of its members to contract a house of one tenement for his own use without a right to transfer or let out the house without the permission of the Society. There was a specific prohibition to make use of the plot for any commercial purpose. On 11. 1985, the Government of Maharashtra issued directions to the effect that the tenant-ownership type of co-operative housing societies should amend their bye-laws so as (i) to enable the plot-holders to construct multi-storeyed building with more then one residential tenant on their plots; and (ii) to form a Society of the owners of flats of the multi-storeyed buildings which should be a member of the housing Society and be represented by its representative in the housing Society. The Registrar also issued a circular on 12. 1985 threatening to take action under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 against the cooperative societies who do comply with the said directions of the State Government. The respondent therein refused to carry out the directed amendments, on the ground that such amendments would destroy the whole concept of the type of the Society as commercialisation of the use of the plots would set in the residential area which is contrary to the concept of the Society itself. Moreover, respondent No.5 sought permission of the Society to construct a multi-storeyed building, but his request was turned down by 16 to 3 votes. The High Court quashed the directions/circulations in favour of the Society. On appeal by the State, the Supreme Court, at paragraph 6, held as follows: .“By Section 14 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, though the power is conferred on the Registrar to direct amendment of the bye-laws of the Society, yet the paramount consideration is the interest of the Society. So also, the power of the State Government under Section 79-A to issue directions in public interest cannot be exercised so as to be prejudicial to the interest of the Society. So also, the power of the State Government under Section 79-A to issue directions in public interest cannot be exercised so as to be prejudicial to the interest of the Society. What is in the interest of the Society is primarily for the Society alone to decide and it is not for an outside agency to say. Where, however, the Government or the Register exercises statutory power of issuing directions to amend the bye-laws, such directions should satisfy the requirement of the interest of the Society. In the instant case, having regard to the nature of the Society and its objectives and having also regard to the fact that the Society in the case of the 5th respondent has turned down his request for the grant of permission by an overwhelming majority, it has to be held that the amendment directed by the Government was not in the interest of the Society. The High Court was, therefore, right in quashing the impugned directions/circulars.” .48. The challenge made in the above reported judgment relate to conversion of a residential plot into that of a commercial plot, meant for construction of house for one tenement for own use of a member, without a right to transfer or let out the house, without the permission of the Society and enable the plot-holders to construct multi-storeyed building with more than one residential tenant on their plots with a housing Society, in which, the owners of flats of the multi-storeyed buildings should be a member. The said direction of the Government was found to be prejudicial to the interests of the Society and in such context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that it is not for an outside agency to say about the usage of the plot. 49. Explanation (b) to Rule 14 states that a “Diary Society” means a Society which has as its principal object the arranging for, and undertaking of, production of milk or purchase of milk produced by its members and storing, processing and marketing of such milk and its products or the supply of milk and its products to its members and includes any society which has as its principal object the provision of facilities for the operation of a dairy society. Section 12 empowers the Registrar to direct amendment of bye-laws, by giving notice to any Society, calling upon the Society to show cause, in such time/as may be specified in the said notice, as to why an amendment should not be made. Perusal of the order, dated 29. 1989 of the third respondent shows that the petitioner-Society was requested to send its proposals for conversion to form a consumer Society or producer Society. Instead of conversion, the Society has passed a resolution, refusing to give its consent for conversion. Therefore, as stated supra, orders were issued by the third respondent. When the correctness of the said order was tested before this Court in W.P. No. 13864 of 1999, this Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under the statute. 50. Material on record shows that by proceedings in Rc. No. 8220/88/E1/(1), dated 1. 2000, the Deputy Registrar, Dairy Development (Virudhunagar), has requested the President, Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, Rajapalayam, to take steps for conversion of the supply Society into producers Society and to send the proposals. Again, another statutory notice has been sent by the Deputy Registrar, Dairy Development, dated 12. 2000, to the President of the Society to submit the proposals, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, an amendment to the bye-laws would be directed to be made under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 51. Steps taken by the Deputy Registrar, Dairy Development, Virudhunagar, shows that adequate opportunity has been given to the President of the Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society to send the proposals for effecting conversion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no procedural violation for effecting the change in the bye-laws of the Society. 52. 51. Steps taken by the Deputy Registrar, Dairy Development, Virudhunagar, shows that adequate opportunity has been given to the President of the Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society to send the proposals for effecting conversion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no procedural violation for effecting the change in the bye-laws of the Society. 52. The contention that neither the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Chennai nor the Government have powers to alter the basic character and nature of the Society, contrary to the byelaws or the resolution passed by them, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that when the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai is empowered to issue directions in public interest or for the purpose of securing proper implementation in Co-operative Production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by the Government and when the directions are binding on all the registered societies or any such registered Society concerned, necessary amendments have to be made to ensure that the statutory directions are duly carried out. 53. When Section 181 of the Act mandates or makes it imperative on the part of the registered societies to comply with the directions issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai in public interest or for other reasons contained therein, the petitioner being a member of the Society, though he is a President, has no statutory or legal right to challenge the policy decision of the Government and as a member of the Society, he is bound by the directions of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai. 54. It is to be noted that even the Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, in which, the petitioner is a member, has not come forward to challenge the validity of G.O. Ms.No.1000, Agriculture Department, dated 6. 1978, by which, the said Society has been directed not to procure milk from the suppliers and to sell the same to consumers. 55. No doubt, the purpose of Co-operative movement and the enactment was to encourage self-help, co-ordination among the agriculturist and artisans, aimed at socio-economic movement that the prime object to serve the members of the Society formed with specific objects. But, the general directions issued under Section 181 or 182, as the case may be, for achieving the objectives stated therein have to be given weightage over the personal interests of the members of a Society or class of societies. 56. But, the general directions issued under Section 181 or 182, as the case may be, for achieving the objectives stated therein have to be given weightage over the personal interests of the members of a Society or class of societies. 56. The policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu aimed at archiving a change in the organisational set up on the lines of the policy decision of the Government of India, as part of the project, “Operation Flood-II”, cannot be set at naught, on the grounds of likelihood of prejudice to the members of only one Society, in the entire State. It is also be noted that whenever any policy decision is implemented, there may be a likelihood of infringement of some rights. But that alone cannot be testing factor to term it as arbitrary. When directions are issued in term of Section 181 of the Act, it may even result in changing the nature and character of a Society, but when the language of Section 181 of the Act makes it imperative, the change in the by-laws or change in the nature and character of a Society is inevitable. 57. The directions issued under Sections 181 or 182 of the Act, as the case may be, have statutory force, whereas, the bye-laws of the Society do not have the same vigor. While that be so, the resolution said have been passed by the members of the Society, on the basis of the bye-laws, cannot prevail over the directions issued under Section 181 of the Act and therefore, even if the statutory rules permit the existence of a supply Society, yet in view of the binding nature of the directions under Section 181 of the Act, the Supply Societies are bound to convert the same into consumer or producer Societies. 58. It is to be noted that the Dairy Co-operatives in Tamil Nadu, viz., the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited (Apex), District Co-positive Milk Producers’ Union Limited, Central Society and Milk Producers’ Co-operative Societies, Primary Level Cooperative Societies are functioning under the administrative control of the Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, Chennai, who is the functional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, insofar as Milk Cooperative Societies are concerned. The main function of the Primary Milk Co-operative Societies is to procure milk from the producers/members and to supply the same to the District Co-operative Milk Producers Union concerned. The main function of the Primary Milk Co-operative Societies is to procure milk from the producers/members and to supply the same to the District Co-operative Milk Producers Union concerned. It is also to be noted that procurement price of the milk is fixed by the Government and the sale price is also fixed by the Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, Chennai. 59. As per definition under Section 2(23), in Chapter I of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, “Registrar” means, an officer of the Government, appointed to perform the duties of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the Act and includes any other officers of the Government on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the Act, have been conferred under Section 3 of the Act. All the powers of the Registrar under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, have been delegated to the Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, Chennai insofar as the Dairy Development are concerned. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the second respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to issue any direction under Section 181 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 cannot be accepted. 60. The contention that there is a likelihood of employees of the society losing their jobs, if the supply Society is converted into a consumer Society is purely an apprehension. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that pursuant to the policy decision, all the Milk Supply Societies in the State of Tamil Nadu, have implicitly carried out the directions issued under Section 181 of the Act and that they are functioning on the pattern of Anand, Kaira District Gujarat State. 161. As the validity of the impugned orders are tested on the basis of statutory provisions, this Court is not inclined to delve into the factual dispute, relating to the sale of milk at excess rate or other contentions raised in the counter affidavit. Pleadings disclose that the area of operation of Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, is in and around 18 Kms., and that a new pasteurization unit has been set up with an estimated cost of Rs.4.65 Lakhs, with the assistance of National Cooperative Development Corporation Fund and that the same is functioning as per the policy decision of the Government. Pleadings disclose that the area of operation of Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, is in and around 18 Kms., and that a new pasteurization unit has been set up with an estimated cost of Rs.4.65 Lakhs, with the assistance of National Cooperative Development Corporation Fund and that the same is functioning as per the policy decision of the Government. The further contention of the respondents that the resistance of Rajapalyam Milk Co-operative Society for conversion is causing an hindrance to milk procurement in the region and to the policy of issuing subsidy and loan also deserves to be considered. 162. The further contention of the respondents that Rajapalayam Milk Co-operative Society, functioning in a semi-urban area, selling milk locally and that the vendors of the Society sell loose milk to the consumers and as such, the consumers do not get standard milk and by conversion of the said supply Society to a consumer or producers Society, it would improve the quality of milk, due to pasteurization/at the new unit set up in Virudhunagar District, by the District Milk Co-operative Union, also cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, looking at from every angle, the transformation in the organisational set up to maintain uniformity, like Anand Pattern, setting up three tier Societies,; viz., Anand Pattern of Producer’s Society at the village level, a Union of Producers Societies at the level of a district (or parts of a district) and Sate Federation of Producer’s Union, would certainly secure proper implementation of the Co-operative Production and other developmental programmes approved or undertaken by the Government. .63. In Sambandam v. Mutheeswarar (supra), the appellate therein was working as a Secretary of Kancheepuram Co-operative Housing Society Limited and that he retired on 37. 1998. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai, issued orders, reappointing the appellant therein for a year. The first respondent therein challenged the validity of the said order on the ground that it is violative of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereuunder and that the Registrar of Housing Society is not vested with any powers to reappoint a person under the guise of directions issued under Section 181 of the Act. Testing the correctness of the said order, the Division Bench of this Court held that, “any direction that may be issued by the Registrar under Section 181 of the Act can be only with reference to the other provisions of the Act and the powers conferred on him by the Act, as otherwise if the contention of the appellants that the Registrar has got wide powers is accepted, then there won’t be limit or control then the Registrar can issue any order as he likes ignoring ail other provisions of the Act.” 164. There is noquarrel over the legal principal decided by the Division Bench. But, the said judgment on facts is inapposite to this case. In the light of the above discussion, this Court of the considered view that a member of Society has no statutory or legal right to question or challenge the policy decision of the Government or the directions of the Registrar of Co-operative Society, Chennai, issued under Section 181 of the Act and that when the statutory directions issued under the above said Section are binding in nature, all registered societies or class of society or members of the society, have no statutory or fundamental right to challenge such directions. The directions issued under Section 181 of the Act satiety the enumerated factors under the Act and therefore, the challenge to the same is liable to be rejected and accordingly, for the above said reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.