JUDGMENT These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed to challenge the constitutional validity of the amendments made to the Bihar Cooperative Societies Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1959 Rules’) under the Bihar Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2008’) and to Section 14(2) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 under the Bihar Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Bihar Act 6 of 2013). The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.11483 of 2011 claim to be the elected Chairman of the concerned Vyapar Mandal Sahyog Samitis, the members of the electorate of the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (BISCOMAUN), an Apex Society. According to the petitioners, Vyapar Mandals comprise the members in four categories (i) Primary Cooperative Societies; (ii) The Individual Farmers; (iii) The Individual Traders; and (iv) The State. Under the constitution of the Vyapar Mandal, the individual traders do not have a right to vote at the general meeting of the Vyapar Mandal nor do they have a right to participate in the management of the Vyapar Mandal. The Vyapar Mandals are affiliated to the Central Cooperative Bank of the District and are also affiliated to the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited. They also have a right to contest election for the Board of Directors of the Central Cooperative Bank. Although the petitioners are not specific about the challenge to the Rules of 2008, in the submission of the learned Counsel, the Rules undermine the autonomy of the Cooperative Societies and the very scheme of the Constitution. The Rules are also bad because it amounts to excessive subordinate legislation. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri has appeared for the petitioners. He has in particular challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 12(A), 20(1A) and 22(1A) of the Rules of 1959 inserted under the Rules of 2008. The aforesaid Rules 12A, 20(1A) and 22(1A) of the Rules of 1959 read as under: “12A. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri has appeared for the petitioners. He has in particular challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 12(A), 20(1A) and 22(1A) of the Rules of 1959 inserted under the Rules of 2008. The aforesaid Rules 12A, 20(1A) and 22(1A) of the Rules of 1959 read as under: “12A. Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this rule or bye-laws of a cooperative society, there shall be no individual member in any apex society or any central society and further no primary society shall be member of any apex society: Provided that the individual members of any apex society or central society shall continue to remain members of such society till such individual ceases to be member of such society for whatever reason and such membership shall not be transferable; Provided further that a primary society which is already a member of any apex society shall continue to be a member of such apex society till such society ceases to be member of such affiliating society.” “20(1A)(a) Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this rule or bye-laws of any cooperative society, the chairperson of the society shall be the delegate of that cooperative society who shall represent that society in the affiliating societies including the General Meetings of such affiliating societies of which that cooperative society is a member. Provided that there shall be no delegate for a society which is under supersession.” (b) xxxxxxx (c) The rule 20(5)(iii) of the said rules shall be substituted by the following:- “Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this rule or bye-laws of any cooperative societies, all the delegates to an affiliating society shall directly participate in the Special General Meeting of such affiliating society.” “22(1A) Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this rule or the bye-laws of any cooperative society, if different types/classes/groups of members are provided in the bye-laws of a cooperative society and office bearers or members of members are also earmarked in the bye-laws of that cooperative society, only members belonging to that particular type/class/group shall vote for election of the office bearers belonging to that particular type/class/group shall vote for election of the office bearers and members of the managing committee earmarked for a particular type/class/group of members.” On perusal of the Rules of 2008 and in particular the above referred Rules 12A, 20(1A) and 22(1A) inserted in the 1959 Rules, it is apparent that the aforesaid amendment to the Rules of 1959 has been made with a view to streamlining the cooperative law and to rule out the possibility of fictitious societies playing role in election to the central/federal societies. Neither it is the specific case of the petitioners nor it is established before us that any of the aforesaid provisions contravenes the parent Act i.e. the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 or any of the constitutional mandates. The challenge to the impugned Rules is ex facie frivolous and has been brought before this Court with an ulterior purpose. The challenge should, therefore, fail. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 24826 of 2012 has challenged the constitutional validity of amendment made to Section 14(2) of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 under the Bihar Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Bihar Act 6 of 2013). According to the petitioner, the said amendment has been enacted in violation of Article 43(b) and Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The petitioner claims to be the Chairman of Dumari Bujurg Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society and of Sonepur Vyapar Mandal Sahyog Samiti (a Central Cooperative Society) as well as of the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (Apex Cooperative Society). The petitioner claims to be the Chairman of Dumari Bujurg Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society and of Sonepur Vyapar Mandal Sahyog Samiti (a Central Cooperative Society) as well as of the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (Apex Cooperative Society). Section 14(2) of the 1935 Act, as it stood before amendment, reads as under: 14(1) xxxxx “(2) The management of registered society shall be vested in managing committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules/ byelaws of the society made under this Act. Notwithstanding any thing contained in any provision of this Act or Rules Byelaws of the Society the Maximum number of members including office bearer of office bearers in a managing committee of Society shall be seventeen in Apex and State level Society, fifteen in Central Cooperative Society and thirteen in Primary Society: Provided that in the Managing Committee of such societies or of class of societies and in such areas as the State Government may by general or special order direct, at least two seats shall be reserved for the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled tribes two seats for the ladies and one seat each for backward caste. The seats so reserved shall be filled up from amongst the members of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, ladies and backward and other backward castes members either by election or/ and by co-option. The seats so reserved shall be filled up from amongst the members of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, ladies and backward and other backward castes members either by election or/ and by co-option. This provision shall apply to all Societies from the primary Society and up to the Apex Society.” Under the Bihar Act 6 of 2013, the aforesaid proviso is substituted by the following proviso: “Provided that there shall be reservation of two seats for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, two seats for the Backward Classes and two seats for the Extremely Backward Classes on the Board of every Co-operative Society: Provided further that for the purpose of reservation of seats as in the above proviso, the State Government may, by general or special order, exclude the Board of societies or class of societies not consisting of individuals as members or not having members from above categories of reservation: Provided further that the total number of seats so reserved shall not exceed fifty percent of the total number of seats: Provided further also that as nearly as but not exceeding fifty percent of the total number of seats so reserved shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, the Backward Classes and the Extremely Backward Classes, as the case may be: Provided further also that as nearly as but not exceeding fifty percent of the total number of seats not reserved above for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, the Backward Classes and the Extremely Backward Classes shall be reserved for women: Provided further also that the total number of seats so reserved for women shall not be less than two. The seats so reserved shall be filled up from amongst the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, Backward and Extremely Backward Classes and women either by election or/and by co-option. This provision shall apply to all societies from the Primary Society and up to the Apex societies: Provided further also that such reservation in Primary Society and up to the Apex Society shall be governed by the rules made under this Act for this purpose.” It is apparent that the reservation policy incorporated in the Proviso to Section 14(2) of the 1935 Act has now, under the impugned amendment, been made more specific. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri has appeared for the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri has appeared for the petitioner. He has taken us through the 97th amendment to the Constitution and Article 43(b) of the Constitution. Mr. Y.V. Giri has submitted that under the 97th amendment to the Constitution, the cooperative societies have been conferred autonomy of formation and functioning and of democratic control and professional management of cooperative societies. Chapter IX B added to the Constitution under the 97th amendment is intended to ensure autonomy of management and democratic functioning of the cooperative societies. The impugned amendment makes inroads in the authority of the cooperative societies of self governance ensured by the 97th amendment to the Constitution and, thus, is unconstitutional. Mr. Y.V. Giri has submitted that Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to form associations and unions. Article 19(1)(c) read with the 97th amendment ensures a complete autonomy upon the Cooperative Societies. The reservation provided in the constitution of the managing committees of the cooperative societies is but an unnecessary and illegal interference by the State Government in the management of the co-operative societies. In support of his submissions, Mr. Y.V. Giri has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of A.P. And Others Versus MCDOWELL & CO. And Others { (1996) 3 SCC 709 }; of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Rakesh Kohli And Another { (2012) 6 SCC 312 }; of Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. And Another Versus District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban) And Others { (2005) 5 SCC 632 }; and of Smt. Damyanti Naranga Versus The Union of India And Others { (1971) 1 SCC 678 }. Learned Principal Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the respondent State of Bihar. He has contested the writ petition. He has submitted that the Bihar Act 6 of 2013 has been enacted by the State of Bihar within its legislative competency. It does not abridge or abrogate any fundamental right conferred upon the petitioner or upon any individual or the right to form an association or union guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. He has submitted that in absence of any other challenge, the challenge to the aforesaid Bihar Act 6 of 2013 shall fail. In support of his submissions, Mr. He has submitted that in absence of any other challenge, the challenge to the aforesaid Bihar Act 6 of 2013 shall fail. In support of his submissions, Mr. Lalit Kishore has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Vijay Kumar Singh Versus State of Bihar { 2006 (2) P.L.J.R. 606 } and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Anil Kumar Gupta And Others Versus State of U.P. And Others { (1995) 5 SCC 173 } and of Hinsa Virodhak Sangh Versus Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat And Others { (2008) 5 SCC 33 }. In the matter of State of A.P. (supra) the challenge was to the total prohibition of manufacture of liquor in the State of Andhra Pradesh on the ground of its being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Court rejected the challenge both on the grounds of legislative competence and violation of fundamental rights. The Hon’ble Court held “no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or the other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act.” In the matter of Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra) the Hon’ble Court struck down the interference of the State Government with the bye-laws of the society which required that the plot of land in the lands of society can be transferred to a person of Parsi community alone. The Hon’ble Court upheld the power of the society to make its own bye-laws on the touchstone of freedom of contract and right to form association guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Court held that the member has to abide by the rules of the society. The Hon’ble Court cautioned “Courts have to be cautious in trying to ride the unruly horse of public policy in acceding to a challenge to a qualification for membership in the bye-laws, not taboo under the Act and the Rules themselves.” In the matter of Vijay Kumar Singh Versus State of Bihar And Others (supra) the challenge was in respect of 50% reservation for female provided by the State Government in Panchayats. The Full Bench of this Court upheld such reservation as in the view of the Full Bench the society comprises of men and women in equal proportion and reservation for women would not monopolize the seats by the majority. In the matter of Hinsa Virodhak Sangh (supra) the Hon’ble Court observed “the court should exercise judicial restraint while judging the constitutional validity of statutes. In our opinion, the same principle also applies when judging the constitutional validity of delegated legislation and here also there should be judicial restraint. There is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of statutes as well as delegated legislation, and it is only when there is a clear violation of a constitutional provision (or of the parent statute, in the case of delegated legislation) beyond reasonable doubt that the court should declare it to be unconstitutional.” In the matter of Anil Kumar Gupta And Others (supra) the matter at issue was the reservation in medical colleges. The Hon’ble Court did not interfere with the matter on hand but issued guiding principles for future. In the matter of Smt. Damyanti Naranga (supra) the Hon’ble Court held the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act enacted by the State of U.P. to be ultra vires the Constitution and void. In the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) the Hon’ble Court has reiterated the age old principle that “legislative enactment can be struck down by Hon’ble Court only on two grounds, namely, (1) that the Legislature does not have the competence to make the law; and (2) that it does not (sic) take away or abridge any of the fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions. As a matter of rule I never incorporate or discuss my own views or beliefs in the subject matter in my judgments. In the present case Mr. Y.V. Giri has challenged that I, being a woman, am the best person to decide upon challenge to the reservation for women. I am, thus, compelled to disclose my mind and my personal opinion. I personally believe that all public offices should be filled in on merits alone. The public officers are the limbs of the Government. It is the public officers who execute the policies of the State and who discharge the state obligations. I am, thus, compelled to disclose my mind and my personal opinion. I personally believe that all public offices should be filled in on merits alone. The public officers are the limbs of the Government. It is the public officers who execute the policies of the State and who discharge the state obligations. It is indeed the duty of the State to generate employment but not to create employment. The public offices are supposed to be created to discharge the state functions and need not be a largess to a selected few. Reservation in public offices is but a largess granted to some persons. I believe that the reservation is a taboo on the society and also on the person concerned. The society, because it implies that the society has segregated a class of not so privileged population and has failed to assimilate such population in the mainstream of the society. Appointment of few such under privileged persons in public offices in the name of reservation does not serve or uplift the entire class of such population. The purpose of assimilation of underprivileged population with the mainstream of the society is not fruitfully achieved by reservation of some posts or offices and appointment of a few on such posts or in offices. It is also a taboo on the person concerned because it implies that the concerned person is incapable or is deficient to stand on his own merits. I am also unable to comprehend why a child just born should be branded as backward class, the seal he is required to carry all his life; why should a child be made to feel incapable because of a particular community in which it has born or because it is a girl; why a child should not have the opportunity to excel and to make a niche in the society on his own merits and hard work. This is equally true for the girls or women. We tend to forget that the proliferation of the human kind on this earth and their excellence over the other species is largely contributed by the women without any aid or assistance. The reservation for women in public employment or in public offices is, in my view, the best (or should I call it the worst) way to ridicule the entire gender of women. The reservation for women in public employment or in public offices is, in my view, the best (or should I call it the worst) way to ridicule the entire gender of women. Although the beneficiaries of such reservation may be very few, affluent or well connected. The hard work and the efforts the women put in for excellence in whatever field they pursue with the raising and maintaining of a family is totally ignored and laughed away in the name of reservation in public employment and public offices. The men at the top who champion reservation for women, tend to forget that a woman (the mother) has laid her life to see her son at the top. It is but the mockery of the capability of women and the sacrifices that women make for their families and for their profession. All women, serving or not, professional or not, highly educated or illiterate, make immense contribution to the society. Their contribution is mainly ignored, not recognized and is largely ridiculed. Be that as it may, these are my personal views which have no bearing on the government policies. One can easily write an essay or even a thesis on the subject. This is in answer to the challenge by Mr. Y.V. Giri. Coming to the challenge to the proviso to the aforesaid Section 14(2), I am unable to agree with Mr. Y.V. Giri that the said proviso are in contravention of the constitutional policy under Chapter IX B of the Constitution or of Articles 43(b) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The very 97th amendment to the Constitution in second proviso to Article 243(ZJ) enjoins the State Legislature to provide for reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Women on the board of every cooperative society consisting of individuals as members and having members from such class or category of persons. Article 243(ZJ) read with Article 15(4) of the Constitution, the legislative competence of the State Government to make reservation on the Board/in the managing committees of the co-operative societies for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/other backward classes and for women is unquestionable. Article 243(ZJ) read with Article 15(4) of the Constitution, the legislative competence of the State Government to make reservation on the Board/in the managing committees of the co-operative societies for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/other backward classes and for women is unquestionable. In my view, therefore, neither the State Legislature lacks legislative competency in providing the reservation in constitution of the Board or managing committee of the Cooperative Societies; nor the said proviso are in contravention of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution; nor do the said proviso abridge or abrogate or offend any fundamental right conferred under Part III of the Constitution nor under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. I see no merit in the challenge to the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 substituted by the Bihar Act 6 of 2013 or to the Rules 12A, 20(1A) and 22(1A) of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Rules, 1959 inserted under the Bihar Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 2008. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Petitions are dismissed with costs. The petitioners will bear the costs. The costs in each Petition is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand).