Judgment : H.G. Ramesh, J. (Oral): 1. Interpretation of the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243-ZM of the Constitution of India and constitutional validity of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of the newly substituted Section 63 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 arise for determination in these writ petitions. 2. Petitioners are Co-operative Societies. They are challenging the constitutional validity of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of the newly substitued Section 63 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the Act’ for short). The earlier Section 63 of the Act is now substituted by a new section by the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2012 (karnataka Act No. 3 of 2013). The petitioners are also challenging the separate communitcations sent to each of them giving a panel of the names of three auditors/auditing firms to select any one of the names from the said panel to audit the accounts of their respective co-operative societies. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as also the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in similar writ petitions listed today and the learned Addition Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act restricting the choice of a Co-operative Society to a panel of auditors and auditing firms, not exceeding ten, is arbitrary and violative of the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243-ZM of the Constitution of India (‘the Constitution’) and hence is unconstitutional. They also submitted that the restriction imposed is unreasonable and violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Accordingly, they submitted that the communication sent to each of the petitioners giving a panel of the names of three auditors and auditing firms to select any one of the names from the said panel to audit the accounts of their respective Co-operative Societies is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents supported the impugned provision as also the impugned communications. He submitted that the impugned provision is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and the communication sent to each of the Co-operative Societies is also in accordance with Section 63 of the Act. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. He submitted that the impugned provision is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and the communication sent to each of the Co-operative Societies is also in accordance with Section 63 of the Act. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. In view of the above, the two questions that fall for determination in these writ petitions are: (i) Whether restricting the choice of a Co-operative Society to a panel of auditors and auditing firm, not exceeding ten, by the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act is arbitrary and violative of the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243-ZM of the Constitution? Whether the restriction is also violative of Article 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? (ii) Whether the impugned communications restricting the choice of a Co-operative Society to a panel of three Auditors/Auditing firms is illegal? To examine the above questions, it is relevant to refer to Article 243-ZM of the Constitution and relevant portion of Section 63 of the Act. Article 243-ZM of the Constitution reads as follows: “243-ZM. Audit of accounts of co-operative societies.- (1) The Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions with respect to the maintenance of accounts by the co-operative societies and the auditing of such accounts at least once in each financial year. (2) The Legislature of a State shall, by law, lay down the minimum qualifications and experience of auditors and auditing firms that shall be eligible for auditing accounts of the co-operative societies. (3) Every co-operative society shall cause to be audited by an auditor or auditing firms referred to in clause (2) appointed by the general body of The Co-operative Society: Provided that such auditors or auditing firms shall be appointed from a panel approved by a State Government or an authority authorised by the State Government in this behalf. (4) The accounts of every co-operative society shall be audited within six months of the close of the financial year to which such accounts relate. (5) The audit report of the accounts of an apex co-operative Society, as may be defined by the State Act, shall be laid before the State Legislature in the manner, as may be provided by the State Legislature, by law”. (emphasis supplied) Relevant portion of Section 63 of the Act reads as follows.- “63. (5) The audit report of the accounts of an apex co-operative Society, as may be defined by the State Act, shall be laid before the State Legislature in the manner, as may be provided by the State Legislature, by law”. (emphasis supplied) Relevant portion of Section 63 of the Act reads as follows.- “63. Audit.-(1) Every co-operative society shall get its accounts audited at least once in a year before the first of September following the close of the co-operative year by an auditor or an auditing firm appointed by the general body of the co-operative society from a panel of auditors or auditing firms approved by the Director of co-operative audit: Provided that the Director of co-operative audit shall be the authority Competent to prepare and maintain a list of auditors and auditing firms who satisfy the prescribed qualification and experience for undertaking the audit of accounts of co-operative societies in the State: Provided further that the Director of co-operative audit shall communicate a panel of auditors and auditing firms, not exceeding ten, to every co-operative society within thirty days from the close of the co-operative year. (2) The general body of every co-operative society shall at its general meeting appoint an auditor or an auditing firm to audit the accounts of the society for the co-operative year in which the general meeting is held. (3) The manner of preparation of the list of auditors and auditing firms by the Director of co-operative audit and the procedure for giving the panel to each co-operative society shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) to (18)………… (19) The remuneration of the auditor or auditing firm of a co-operative society shall be borne by the society and shall be at such rates as may be fixed by general body of the society. (4) to (18)………… (19) The remuneration of the auditor or auditing firm of a co-operative society shall be borne by the society and shall be at such rates as may be fixed by general body of the society. (i) “Auditor” means an auditor or an officer of the Department of Co-operative Audit who has passed, in addition to the graduation or post-graduation degree, Higher Diploma in Co-operative Management/Diploma in Co-operative Audit/general Diploma in Cooperative Management and who has completed the period of probation successfully and who has a working knowledge of the Kannada language; or a Chartered Accountant within the meaning of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 who shall have a fair knowledge of the functioning of the co-operative societies and shall have an experience of at least three years in auditing of which the auditor would like to be included in the panel and Chartered Accountants shall have working knowledge of the Kannada language. (ii) “Auditing firm” means a firm of more than one Chartered Accountant within the meaning of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 who or which shall have a fair knowledge of the functioning of the Co-operative Societies and shall have an experience of at least three years in auditing of which the auditing firm would like to be included in the panel and Chartered Accountants shall have working knowledge of the Kannada language”. (20)………….. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section.- (emphasis supplied) 7. The object of Article 243-ZM of the Constitution is to empower the State Legislatures to make appropriate laws for an independent professional audit of Co-operative Societies. As per the said article, the legislature of a State shall lay down the minimum qualifications and experience of auditors and auditing firms who shall be eligible for auditing accounts of Co-operative Societies. The State Government or an authority authorised by the State Government shall prepare a panel of such eligible auditors or auditing firms and the general body of the Co-operative Society shall appoint an auditor or an auditing firm from such a panel to audit the accounts of the society. 8. Under the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243-ZM of the Constitution, a Co-operative Society is given a choice to choose any of the eligible auditors or auditing firms from a panel approved by the State Government or an authority authorised by the State Government in that behalf. 8. Under the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243-ZM of the Constitution, a Co-operative Society is given a choice to choose any of the eligible auditors or auditing firms from a panel approved by the State Government or an authority authorised by the State Government in that behalf. The proviso provides for one panel of auditors and auditing firms for audit of accounts of Co-operative Societies in the State. This does not mean the minimum qualifications and experience of auditors and auditing firms eligible for auditing accounts of all types or kings of Co-operative Societies in the State shall be the same. The eligibility criteria may depend on the type or king of a Co-operative Society. It is for the State Legislature to lay down the eligibility criteria as stated in clause (2) of Article 243-ZM of the Constitution. 8.1 Let me now refer to Section 63 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act states that every Co-operative Society shall get its accounts audited at least once in a year before the first of September following the close of the co-operative year by an auditor or an auditing firm appointed by the general body of the co-operative society from a panel of auditors or auditing firms approved by the Director of Co-operative audit. 8.2 The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act states that the Director of Co-operative Audit shall be the authority competent to prepare and maintain a list of auditors and auditing firms who satisfy the prescribed qualifications and experience for undertaking the audit of accounts of Co-operative Societies in the State. 8.3 The impugned provision namely the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act states that the Director of Co-operative audit shall communicate a panel of auditors and auditing firms, not exceeding ten, to every co-operative society within thirty days from the close of the co-operative year. The proviso restricts the choice of a cooperative society to select the auditors/auditing firms to a smaller panel of names, not exceeding ten. It is relevant to state that in the present cases, the panels so sent to each of the petitioners give the names of only three auditors and auditing firms. The proviso restricts the choice of a cooperative society to select the auditors/auditing firms to a smaller panel of names, not exceeding ten. It is relevant to state that in the present cases, the panels so sent to each of the petitioners give the names of only three auditors and auditing firms. 8.4 Sub-section (19) of section 63 of the Act states that the remuneration of the auditor or auditing firm of a co-operative society shall be born by the society and shall be at such rates as may be fixed by general body of the society. 8.5 Explanation to Section 63 of the Act lays down the minimum qualifications and experience of auditors and auditing firms for the purpose of Section 63 of the Act. 9. In my opinion, the restriction imposed by the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act restricting the choice of a Co-operative Society to choose an auditor or an auditing firm from a panel of auditors and auditing firms, not exceeding ten, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also violative of the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243-ZM of the Constitution as the said constitutional proviso provides for a panel for the State i.e. one panel for the State and also gives a choice to every co-operative society to choose any of the eligible auditors or auditing firms from the said panel. Hence, providing separate panels of a few names to every Co-operative Society in the State as per the impugned proviso is violative of the constitutional proviso. Though under Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa the context does not admit of such a interpretation of the constitutional proviso i.e., permitting plurality of panels, like giving separate panels of a few names to every co-operative society in the State as is done now. Any law which contravenes the constitutional provisions is unconstitutional and void. Therefore, the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act which restricts the choice of a co-operative Society to choose an auditor or an auditing firm from a panel, not exceeding ten, is unconstitutional and void being violative of Article 14 and the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243-ZM of the Constitution. Therefore, the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act which restricts the choice of a co-operative Society to choose an auditor or an auditing firm from a panel, not exceeding ten, is unconstitutional and void being violative of Article 14 and the proviso to clause (3) of Article 243-ZM of the Constitution. Consequently, the communication sent to each of the petitioners giving a panel of only three names of auditors and auditing firms to select any one of them from the said panel to audit the accounts of their respective Co-operative Societies is also illegal. In the view I have taken, it is unnecessary to examine the contention re-violation of the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. For the reasons stated above, I make the following order”. The second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 is declared as unconstitutional and void and shall not be given effect to. Consequently, the impugned communications are also set aside. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.