JUDGMENT A.K. Goel, C.J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of the Odisha Self Help Co-operatives (Repeal) Ordinance, 2013, letters dated 7.6.2013 and 17.6.2013 of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Odisha for implementation thereof and direction to allow the petitioners to run the co-operative society as per the repealed provisions contained in the Orissa Self-Help Co-operatives Act, 2001 (for short, "the 2001 Act"). Since during pendency of the writ petition the Ordinance has been replaced by the Odisha Self Help Co-operatives (Repeal) Act, 2013 (for short "the Repeal Act"), the petitioners have sought substitution of their prayer for quashing the Ordinance by the Act. Case set out in the petition is that the formation and working of co-operative societies in the State of Odisha was earlier governed by the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 Act (for short, "the 1962 Act"). In the year 2001, the Orissa Self-Help Co-operatives Act, 2001 was enacted with different pattern of regulation and control of the co-operative societies. The Parliament brought about the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011, which came into force with effect from 15.2.2012 (the 97th Amendment), incorporating constitutional provisions in respect of functioning of co-operative societies. The Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 was enacted by the Central Government to regulate functioning of multi-state co-operative societies. The same was replaced by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 ("the MSC Act"). 2. The working of co-operative sector has received attention in Five Year Plan from time to time. There has also been review of national co-operative policy from time to time. The Central Government constituted a committee to review working of co-operative societies particularly for democratization and professionalization of management in co-operative sector headed by Sri K.N. Ardhanareeswaran in 1985. In 1989, the Agricultural Credit Review Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. A.M. Khuso examined the problems of agricultural and rural credit societies and recommended a major systemic improvement. On the basis of the report of the Choudhary Brahm Perkash Committee, the Model Co-operatives Act, 1990 was enacted providing for more autonomy for working in the cooperative societies, upon which, many states including the State of Odisha enacted parallel Co-Operative Societies Acts. In the State of Odisha, 2001 Act was enacted in the said series. The Government of India declared its national co-operative policy in the year 2002 and constituted a Ministerial Task Force to formulate a plan of action for implementation thereon. 3. In the State of Odisha, 2001 Act was enacted in the said series. The Government of India declared its national co-operative policy in the year 2002 and constituted a Ministerial Task Force to formulate a plan of action for implementation thereon. 3. In the Ninety-seventh amendment, constitutional provisions have been incorporated in relation to working of co-operative societies with a view to introduce more accountability, professionalization and stability. A new Part, after Part-IX-A, has been inserted under the heading "The Co-operative Societies" containing the provisions from Articles from 243ZH to 243ZT. Article 243ZT provides that any provision of any law relating to co-operative societies in the state, which is inconsistent with Part-IX-B of the Constitution, will continue for one year or till amendment or repeal by the State Legislature. Thus, within maximum period of one year, the States were required to amend the State laws to be brought in conformity with the amended constitutional provisions of Part-IX-B. 4. Statement of objects and reasons for the 97th Amendment as follows: The co-operative sector, over the years, has made significant contribution to various sectors of national economy and has achieved voluminous growth. However, it has shown weaknesses in safeguarding the interests of the members and fulfilment of objects for which these institutions were organised. There have been instances where elections have been postponed indefinitely and nominated office bearers or administrators remaining in-charge of these institutions for a long time. This reduces the accountability of the management of co-operative societies to their members. Inadequate professionalism in management in many of the co-operative institutions has led to poor services and low productivity. Co-operatives need to run on well established democratic principles and elections held on time and in a free and fair manner. Therefore, there is a need to initiate fundamental reforms to revitalize these institutions in order to ensure their contribution in the economic development of the country and to serve the interests of members and public at large and also to ensure their autonomy, democratic functioning and professional management. 2. The "co-operative societies" is a subject enumerated in Entry 32 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the State Legislatures have accordingly enacted legislations on co-operative societies. 2. The "co-operative societies" is a subject enumerated in Entry 32 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the State Legislatures have accordingly enacted legislations on co-operative societies. Within the framework of State Acts, growth of co-operatives on large scale was envisaged as part of the efforts for securing social and economic justice and equitable distribution of the fruits of development. It has, however, been experienced that in spite of considerable expansion of cooperatives, their performance in qualitative terms has not been up to the desired level. Considering the need for reforms in the Co-operative Societies Acts of the States, consultations with the-State Governments have been held at several occasions and in the conferences of State Co-operative Ministers. A strong need has been felt for amending the Constitution so as to keep-the cooperatives free from unnecessary outside interferences and also to ensure their autonomous organisational set up and their democratic functioning. 3. The Central Government is committed to ensure that the co-operative societies in the country function in a democratic, professional, autonomous and economically sound manner. With a view-to bring the necessary reforms, it is proposed to incorporate a new Part in the Constitution so as to provide for certain provisions covering the vital aspects of working of cooperative societies like democratic, autonomous and professional functioning. A new article is also proposed to be inserted in Part IV of the Constitution (Directive Principles of State Policy) for the States to endeavour to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of co-operative societies. A new article is also proposed to be inserted in Part IV of the Constitution (Directive Principles of State Policy) for the States to endeavour to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of co-operative societies. The proposed new Part in the Constitution, inter alia, seeks to empower the Parliament in respect of multi-State co-operative societies and the State Legislatures in case of other co-operative societies to make appropriate law, laying down the following matters, namely- (a) provisions for incorporation, regulation and winding up of co-operative societies based on the principles of democratic member-control, member-economic participation and autonomous functioning; (b) specifying the maximum number of directors of a cooperative society to be not exceeding twenty-one members; (c) providing for a fixed term of five years from the date of election in respect of the elected members of the board and its office bearers; (d) providing for a maximum time limit of six months during which a board of directors of cooperative society could be superseded or kept under suspension; (e) providing for independent professional audit; (f) providing for right of information to the members of the; co-operative societies; (g) empowering the State Governments to obtain periodic reports of activities and accounts of cooperative societies; (h) providing for the reservation of one seat for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and two seats for women on the board of every co-operative society, which have individuals as members from such categories; (i) providing for offences relating to co-operative societies and penalties in respect of such offences. 4. It is expected that these provisions will not only ensure the autonomous and democratic functioning of co-operatives, but also ensure the accountability of management to the members and other stakeholders and shall provide for deterrence for violation of the provisions of the law. 5. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives. 5. Case of State of Odisha is that it amended the 1962 Act to bring it in conformity with the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 vide 2012 Amendment Act. The statements of objects of the 2012 Amendment Act is as follows: The Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act 2011 has come into force with effect from 15th February 2012. As per the constitutional amendment, forming of Co-operative Societies has been made a Fundamental Right for the citizens of India. The statements of objects of the 2012 Amendment Act is as follows: The Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act 2011 has come into force with effect from 15th February 2012. As per the constitutional amendment, forming of Co-operative Societies has been made a Fundamental Right for the citizens of India. Promotion of voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, professional management and democratic control of Cooperatives has been included under the Directive Principles of State Policy, thereby, casting an obligation on the State to endeavour for promotion of Cooperatives. In keeping with the provisions of the 97, See-Theory, History and Practice of Co-operation by R.D. Bedi, 9th Revised Edition, 1974 page 27. Constitution Amendment Act, 2011, it becomes mandatory for the State Government to carry out necessary amendment of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 to bring it in conformity with the amended provisions of the Constitution. The existing provisions of the O.C.S. Act, 1962 are proposed to be amended which are inconsistent to the principles contained in the Constitution. Registration, regulation and winding-up of Cooperative Societies are based on the principles of voluntary formation, democratic member control, member economic participation and autonomous functioning. The Board of Directors of the Cooperative Societies is to be constituted having maximum number of twenty-one Directors in the Board with reservation of one seat for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and two seats for Women. The term of office of the elected members of the Board shall be five years and interim vacancy in the Board shall be filled up by nomination/election. Professionals not exceeding two shall be co-opted to be the Directors in the Board and the Functional Director (Chief Executive) shall also be a Director in addition to the maximum 21 elected Directors. The co-opted and functional Directors shall have no voting rights. These suggestions made in the Constitution are being accommodated by amending the required sections of the Act. The election to the Board shall be conducted before expiry of the term by State Co-operative Election Commission as per the procedure and guidelines to be provided for conduct of such elections. A new body is proposed to be created to hold the election of Co-operative Societies in the state timely in the name of Odisha State Co-operative Election Commission, which will be headed by State Co-operative Election Commissioner to facilitate the timely election in the Co-operative Societies. A new body is proposed to be created to hold the election of Co-operative Societies in the state timely in the name of Odisha State Co-operative Election Commission, which will be headed by State Co-operative Election Commissioner to facilitate the timely election in the Co-operative Societies. The Board can be superseded/suspended on specified grounds for a period not exceeding one year in case of society carrying on the business of banking and in case of other society for a period not exceeding six months from the date of such order and there shall be no supersession or suspension in cases where there is no Government shareholding/financial assistance/Government guarantee. On such supersession/suspension, an Administrator shall be appointed to manage the affairs of the society. The terms and conditions of service of the Administrator shall be as specified. On supersession/suspension of Societies, the Administrator of the Society shall ensure conduct of elections to the Society within six months. The provisions in the Act have been amended suitably to incorporate the amendment made in the Constitution regarding the suspension and supersession of the Co-operatives. Maintenance of Accounts of the Societies shall be specified and auditing of such account at least once in each financial year shall be done by auditors or auditing firms appointed by the General Body of the Society from a panel approved by State Government or any Authority authorized by the State, See-Theory, History and Practice of Co-operation by R.D. Bedi, 9th Revised Edition, 1974 page 27. Government in its behalf. The audit of accounts of a society shall be completed within 6 months of the close of the financial year and the audit report of Apex Societies shall be laid before the State Legislature. Holding of the General Body Meeting within 6 months of close of the financial year has been incorporated in the Act and by this process the accountability can be fixed on the erring employees and the Committees. There shall be access for the member of Co-operative Society to the books, information and accounts of the Society in respect of transaction of its business with such member. The participation of members in the management of Co-operative Societies shall be ensured with provisions for minimum requirement of attending meetings and utilizing the minimum level of services of the Society. There shall be access for the member of Co-operative Society to the books, information and accounts of the Society in respect of transaction of its business with such member. The participation of members in the management of Co-operative Societies shall be ensured with provisions for minimum requirement of attending meetings and utilizing the minimum level of services of the Society. Imparting co-operative education and training to the members of Co-operative Societies shall be provided for, which will give right to the Member of the society about the Right to information and member participation. Returns on Annual Activity Report, audited accounts statement, plan for surplus disposal, amendments to the bye laws, declaration on date of holding General Body and conduct of elections of the society shall be filed with the designated authority. There shall be provisions for dealing with offences relating to the Co-operative Societies and penalties for such offences. Suitable proposals for amendments in the existing provisions of the Act are proposed for incorporation of these provisions. The Bill seeks to achieve the objectives as mandated in the Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011. 6. To avoid different Acts dealing with the co-operative societies, the impugned Repeal Ordinance was issued so that thereafter only the 1962 Act as amended in 2012 will govern all co-operative societies uniformly. The Repeal Ordinance came into force with effect from 6.6.2013. Section 3 of the Ordinance provides that every cooperative society existing prior to the Ordinance shall be deemed to be registered under the 1962 Act, as amended in 2012, and its bye-laws will be brought in conformity with the said Act. It further provides that the Board of Directors will be reconstituted within three months of the Ordinance, failing which the Board of Directors shall stand dissolved and the management of such society shall be vested in the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, who shall take steps for amendment of the bye-laws and reconstitution of the Board in conformity with the 1962 Act. This was followed by letter dated 7.6.2013 of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to all the Divisional DRCS/Circle ARCS to implement the Ordinance and letter dated 17.6.2013 was addressed to Chief Executive of the Co-operative Societies asking the said societies to implement the Ordinance. This was followed by letter dated 7.6.2013 of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to all the Divisional DRCS/Circle ARCS to implement the Ordinance and letter dated 17.6.2013 was addressed to Chief Executive of the Co-operative Societies asking the said societies to implement the Ordinance. Statement of objects and reasons for the Repeal Act is as follows: Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 has come into force with effect from the 15th February 2012. As per the Constitutional amendment, forming of Cooperative Societies has been made a fundamental right of the citizens of India Voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, professional management and democratic control of Co-operatives has been included under the Directive Principles of State Policy and promotion of Co-operative Societies has been made an obligation for the State. It is mandatory for the State to enact laws in conformity with amended provisions of the Act within one year from the date of such commencement i.e. 15.02.2012. Accordingly, the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 has been amended to bring it in conformity with the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011. The Odisha Self-Help Co-operatives Act, 2001, provides for the Co-operatives to function parallel to the Co-operative Societies formed under the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. The Constitution 97th Amendment requires the Odisha Self-Help Cooperatives Act, 2001 to be amended in the same lines as the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act providing for election of members of Board by an independent authority, reservation for SC or ST and Women in the Board, professionalization of management supersession or suspension of Board and audit of accounts by auditors or auditing firms taken from a panel approved by Government etc. Consequent upon such amendment, the Co-operatives will lose their unique character as opposed to the Co-operative Societies. This will result in the State having two State Acts governing the Co-operatives and the Cooperative Societies without much distinction between them. It is, therefore, considered expedient and felt necessary that the Cooperatives registered under the Odisha Self-Help Co-operatives Act, 2001 are brought under the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 and the Odisha Self-Help Co-operatives Act, 2001 is repealed. This will result in the State having two State Acts governing the Co-operatives and the Cooperative Societies without much distinction between them. It is, therefore, considered expedient and felt necessary that the Cooperatives registered under the Odisha Self-Help Co-operatives Act, 2001 are brought under the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 and the Odisha Self-Help Co-operatives Act, 2001 is repealed. In effect, the Co-operatives registered under the Odisha Self-Help Co-operatives Act, 2001 shall be deemed to be registered under the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 and the Articles of Association shall be amended in conformity with the provisions of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 and the Board of Directors reconstituted by the Co-operatives within 3 months failing which the Board of Directors of such Cooperatives shall stand dissolved and the management of the Cooperatives shall vest in the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Upon such dissolution, the Registrar within two months shall take steps for amendment of the Articles of Association and reconstitute the Board of Directors in accordance with such amended provisions and the provisions of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962. This will dispense with a situation where two similar institutions with same basic principle, function under two different Acts facilitate bringing them within the fold of a common law. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives. 7. The grievance of the two writ petitioners, who are North Odisha Farmers and Multi-Purpose Co-operative Ltd., Balasore and its President individually, is that while the 2001 Act is in conformity with the national policy on co-operatives to which the State of Odisha is a signatory and conforms to the co-operative principles recommended by the Planning Commission and various committees, the Odisha Self-Help Co-operatives (Repeal) Ordinance, 2013 was unconstitutional in doing away with the said law and providing that the co-operative societies registered under the 2001 Act shall be deemed to be registered under the 1962 Act and the bye-laws of such co-operative societies shall be brought in conformity with the 1962 Act within three months of the Ordinance. 8. According to the petitioners, the Repeal Act violates Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution by compelling the existing co-operative societies to be registered under the 1962 Act. Main reliance has been placed by the petitioners on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Damayanti v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 966 and A.P. Dairy Development Corpn. 8. According to the petitioners, the Repeal Act violates Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution by compelling the existing co-operative societies to be registered under the 1962 Act. Main reliance has been placed by the petitioners on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Damayanti v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 966 and A.P. Dairy Development Corpn. Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy, (2011) 9 SCC 286 . 9. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State in W.P. (C) No. 21536 of 2013, which has also been relied upon for opposing this petition also. The stand of the State is that the legislature was fully competent to repeal an existing statute. The same has been done with a view to have uniform law on the subject. Rights of the co-operative societies can be regulated and controlled by law and once a co-operative society is formed, the members could not claim a separate right over and above the rights of the Society. "The stream cannot rise above the source" as held by the Apex Court in State of U.P. & another v. C.O.D. Chheoki Employees Co-operative Society & others, AIR 1997 SC 1413 . The State Legislature has acted in conformity with the Ninety-seventh Amendment by enacting the Amendment Act with effect from 30.1.2013 and has decided to repeal the 2011 Act w.e.f. 6.6.2013, as it was not desirable to continue two parallel Acts. The 1962 Act, as amended, was a valid legislation and the societies registered under the 2011 Act, after repeal of the said Act, are covered under the 1962 Act uniformly. 10. We have heard Mr. P. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Advocate General for the State of Odisha. 11. Main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the Repeal Act is violative of 19(1)(c) and Article 43B of the Constitution. Being arbitrary, it will be hit by Article 14. The deeming fiction to treat societies registered under 2001 Act as being deemed to have registered under the 1962 Act affects the voluntariness in forming a society, which is the basic principle of co-operatives. The 1962 Act provides deep and pervasive control over membership, registration, management, liquidation, merger and amalgamation, while the 2001 Act is based on principles of voluntariness in formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management, which are the co-operative principles. The 1962 Act provides deep and pervasive control over membership, registration, management, liquidation, merger and amalgamation, while the 2001 Act is based on principles of voluntariness in formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management, which are the co-operative principles. There was a consensus in a meeting of group of Ministers of all States on the principles which led to the 2011 Act. Once option was given to the co-operative societies registered under the 1962 Act to switch over to the 2001 Act, the said option could not be withdrawn by repeal of the 2001 Act. The petitioners were not receiving any financial aid and they could not be subjected to control. 12. Learned Advocate General submitted that scope of Article 19(1)(c) was limited to formation of a co-operative society and it does not debar the legislature from enacting or amending any provisions to regulate and govern the co-operative societies. The State Legislature, in its wisdom, amended the 1962 Act to bring the same in conformity with the Ninety-seventh Amendment of the Constitution and repealed 2001 Act with a view to have uniform law dealing with the co-operative societies. 13. The question for consideration is whether the Orissa Self-Help Co-operative (Repeal) Act, 2013 is violative Articles 14 and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. It will be appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of the Repeal Act: 2. (1) The Odisha Self-Help Co-operatives Act, 2001 is hereby repealed. x xx 3. 13. The question for consideration is whether the Orissa Self-Help Co-operative (Repeal) Act, 2013 is violative Articles 14 and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. It will be appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of the Repeal Act: 2. (1) The Odisha Self-Help Co-operatives Act, 2001 is hereby repealed. x xx 3. Save as provided in sub-section (2) of section 2, every Co-operative existing immediately before the commencement of this Act, which has been registered under the Act so repealed shall be deemed to be registered under the corresponding provisions of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 and the bye-laws or the articles of association, by whatever name called, shall, so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962, be amended in accordance with the provisions of that Act and the Board of Directors, shall be reconstituted within three months from the date of commencement of this Act by such Co-operative failing which the said Board of Directors of such Cooperative shall stand dissolved on expiration of the said period of three months and the management of such Co-operative shall vest in the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Registrar shall within two months from the date of such dissolution shall take steps for amendment of the bye-laws or articles of association and reconstitute the Board of Directors in accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws of such Cooperatives and the provisions of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. 14. We are of the view that the Repeal Act is not violative of Articles 19(1)(c) and 14 of the Constitution. It cannot be seriously disputed that the power of repeal is vested in the legislature incidental to the power to enact. It has been duly explained that the repeal is preceded by amendment to the 1962 Act to bring the same in conformity with the constitutional amendment. It is also based on the consideration that uniform law was desirable in the wisdom of the Legislature. 15. It has been duly explained that the repeal is preceded by amendment to the 1962 Act to bring the same in conformity with the constitutional amendment. It is also based on the consideration that uniform law was desirable in the wisdom of the Legislature. 15. We now consider the question whether under Section 3, while purporting to enact a saving clause, the State Legislature has exceeded its jurisdiction in enacting a deeming provision that a cooperative existing before the Repeal Act shall be deemed to be registered under the 1962 Act and its bye-laws shall be amended and the Board of Directors shall be reconstituted within three months from the Repeal Act, in accordance with the 1962 Act and whether in doing so there is violation of fundamental rights or whether the applicability of 1962 Act will be bad for violating principles of co-operatives. 16. Stand on behalf of the State is that the provisions of Section 3 are by way of transitory provisions to deal with the vacuum, which may arise on account of repeal. The self-help co-operatives registered under the 2001 Act are required to be regulated by some law after repeal of the said Act. There is no challenge to the validity of the 1962 Act, as amended. Challenge is only to Section 3 of the Repeal Act. Once repeal is absolute right of the State Legislature, no objection can be taken to a saving provision, which is transitional and clarificatory in nature. Indirect challenge to the applicability of the 1962 Act on the ground that it interferes with the principle of voluntariness in formation of a co-operative society has to be repelled on settled principles of law to be discussed hereafter. 17. Apart from the fact that Section 3 of the Act is a transitory provision to deal with a situation which may arise, when the 2001 Act will cease to apply to co-operatives registered under the said Act, requirement of registration and compliance of 1962 Act cannot be held to offend Article 19(1)(c) or Article 14. Judgment in Smt. Damayanti Naranga's case (supra) relied upon by the petitioners has been repeatedly distinguished by pointing out that therein issue for consideration was validity of legislation under Entry 63 of List I. Right to working of co-operative societies is beyond Article 19(1)(c) and can be regulated under Article 19(6) in the interest of general public. 18. Judgment in Smt. Damayanti Naranga's case (supra) relied upon by the petitioners has been repeatedly distinguished by pointing out that therein issue for consideration was validity of legislation under Entry 63 of List I. Right to working of co-operative societies is beyond Article 19(1)(c) and can be regulated under Article 19(6) in the interest of general public. 18. The Constitution Bench in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1965 SC 40 , observed: 29. ... As soon as citizens form a company, the right guaranteed to them by Art. 19(1)(c) has been exercised and no restraint has been placed on that right and no infringement of that right is made. Once a company or a corporation is formed, the business which is carried on by the said company or corporation is the business of the company or corporation and is not the business of the citizens who get the company or corporation formed or incorporated, and the rights of the incorporated body must be judged on that footing and cannot be judged on the assumption that they are the rights attributable to the business of individual citizens. Therefore we are satisfied that the argument based on the distinction between the two rights guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(c) and (g) and the effect of their combination cannot take the petitioners' case very far when they seek to invoke the doctrine that the veil of the corporation should be lifted. That is why we have come to the conclusion that the petitions filed by the petitioners are incompetent under Art. 32, even though in each of these petitions one or two of the shareholders of the petitioning companies or corporation have joined. 19. Dealing with Smt. Damayanti Naranga's case (supra), while upholding compulsory affiliation of D.A.V. College to a University, it was observed in D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 269 : 32. A reference has been made to a recent case of Smt. Damayanti Narang v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 678 , that a compulsory affiliation by statute would interfere with the right of association. A reference has been made to a recent case of Smt. Damayanti Narang v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 678 , that a compulsory affiliation by statute would interfere with the right of association. This argument in our view is untenable because in that case Parliament passed a law under Entry 63 of List II of Schedule Seventh to the Constitution under which a Hindi Sammelan was to be constituted which was to consist of the first members of the Hindi Sammelan registered under the Societies Registration Act and all persons who become members thereof in accordance with the rules in that behalf. This statutory Sammelan was constituted as a body corporate the first members of which were to consist of persons who immediately before the appointed day were life members of the Society, had been Presidents of the Society or were awarded the Mangla Prasad Paritoshik by the Society. There were also other provisions by which the Hindi Sammelan Society, its constitution as well as its property was affected. In those circumstances it was held that the Act insofar as it interferes with the composition of the Society in constituting the Sammelan violated the rights of the original members of the Society to form an association guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c). No such thing was intended or effected by Section 5 of the Act. At any rate the D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society is not being interfered with, by any attempt to form an Association with the University. We can see no infringement of Article 19(1)(c). 20. Same view was taken in Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712 : 24. From a reading of the two decisions, namely, Maneka Gandhi case, (1978) 1 SCC 248 , (seven-Judge Bench) and All India Bank Employees Assn. case, AIR 1962 SC 171 , (five-Judge Bench), the following principles emerge: (i) a right to form associations or unions does not include within its ken as a fundamental right a right to form associations or unions for achieving a particular object or running a particular institution, the same being a concomitant or concomitant to a concomitant of a fundamental right, but not the fundamental right itself. The associations or unions of citizens cannot further claim as a fundamental right that they must also be able to achieve the purpose for which they have come into existence so that any interference with such achievement by law shall be unconstitutional, unless the same could be justified under Article 19(4) as being a restriction imposed in the interest of public order or morality; (ii) a right to form associations guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) does not imply the fulfilment of every object of an association as it would be contradictory to the scheme underlying the text and the frame of the several fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III and particularly by the scheme of the guarantees conferred by sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (1) of Article 19; (iii) while right to form an association is to be tested by reference to Article 19(1)(c) and the validity of restriction thereon by reference to Article 19(4), once the individual citizens have formed an association and carry on some activity, the validity of legislation restricting the activities of the association shall have to be judged by reference to Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6). A restriction on the activities of the association is not a restriction on the activities of the individual citizens forming membership of the association; and (iv) a perusal of Article 19 with certain other Articles like 26, 29 and 30 shows that while Article 19 grants rights to the citizens as such, the associations can lay claim to the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19 solely on the basis of their being an aggregation of citizens i.e. the rights of the citizens composing the body. As the stream can rise no higher than the source, associations of citizens cannot lay claim to rights not open to citizens or claim freedom from restrictions to which the citizens composing it are subject. 28. A right to form unions guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) does not carry with it a fundamental right in the union so formed to achieve every object for which it was formed with the legal consequence that any legislation not falling within clause (4) of Article 19 which might in any way hamper the fulfilment of those objects, should be declared unconstitutional and void. Even a very liberal interpretation cannot lead to the conclusion that the trade unions have a guaranteed right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike, either as part of collective bargaining or otherwise. The right to strike or the right to declare a lockout may be controlled or restricted by appropriate industrial legislation, and the validity of such legislation would have to be tested not with reference to the criteria laid down in clause (4) of Article 19 but by totally different considerations. A right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) on a literal reading thereof can be subjected to those restrictions which satisfy the test of clause (4) of Article 19. The rights not included in the literal meaning of Article 19(1)(c) but which are sought to be included therein as flowing therefrom i.e. every right which is necessary in order that the association brought into existence fulfils every object for which it is formed, the qualifications therefor would not merely be those in clause (4) of Article 19 but would be more numerous and very different. Restrictions which bore upon and took into account the several fields in which associations or unions of citizens might legitimately engage themselves, would also become relevant. 21. As regards co-operative principle of voluntariness and autonomy being bar to applicability of 1962 Act, it is difficult to accept that plenary legislative power is hindered by the same. Unless hit by any constitutional bar, wisdom of legislature cannot be questioned on such grounds. The matter is no longer res integra. We may refer to at least two decisions on the point. In Harakh Bhagat and another v. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Barh, and others, AIR 1968 PAT 211 , it was observed: 8. It was, however, urged that voluntariness is the essence of co-operative movement, and any provision in the rule for compulsory amalgamation will be wholly outside the scope of any statute dealing with co-operative movement. On the basis of this argument it was urged that notwithstanding the wide language used in Section 66(2)(ix) of the Act this Court should, as a matter of construction, hold that amalgamation can be made only on a voluntary basis I am, however, unable to accept this extreme contention. On the basis of this argument it was urged that notwithstanding the wide language used in Section 66(2)(ix) of the Act this Court should, as a matter of construction, hold that amalgamation can be made only on a voluntary basis I am, however, unable to accept this extreme contention. The basic principles of the co-operative movement, which has spread throughout the world have been briefly stated in Encyclopedia Britannica Volume 6, 1965 edition as follows:- Briefly these principles call for democratic control, open membership no religious or political discrimination, service at cost and education of the members have a dual relationship to their association. They contribute its capital and are also customers or patrons. But whatever may be the principles of co-operation as known throughout the world, once the Legislature provides for the incorporation of such Societies and confers certain rights and privileges on such incorporated Societies, the Legislature may make adequate provision for proper supervision, control and guidance of the Societies along right lines. The preamble of the Act quoted above shows clearly that the Act provides not only for the formation of Societies but also for "facilitating the working of the Societies with the ultimate aim of promoting thrift, self-help and mutual aid." Hence, if, subject to certain safeguards, the Legislature thought that there should be adequate provision in the Act to amalgamate Societies, either compulsorily or voluntarily, or to supersede the managing committees of the Societies, or, in extreme cases, to dissolve the Societies altogether, it cannot be said that the spirit of the co-operative principle is violated. In any case, it is primarily the function of the Legislature to provide for the promotion of the co-operative spirit, and no provision of the statute can be struck down as invalid merely because it may not strictly conform to the basic principles of co-operative movement as understood in the West. Apart from the provisions mentioned above, Section 61 of the Act provides for compulsory affiliation of a registered Society to a Co-operative Federation. This shows that in appropriate cases an element of compulsion may be introduced without in any way weakening the principles of cooperation I am therefore, unable to agree that this Court, on a matter of mere construction, can unduly narrow down the wide scope of Section 66(2)(ix) of the Act by restricting it to voluntary amalgamation only. This shows that in appropriate cases an element of compulsion may be introduced without in any way weakening the principles of cooperation I am therefore, unable to agree that this Court, on a matter of mere construction, can unduly narrow down the wide scope of Section 66(2)(ix) of the Act by restricting it to voluntary amalgamation only. It may be further noted in this connection that the preamble expressly says that the provisions of the Act are intended to facilitate "consolidation" of Co-operative Societies. In substance there is no difference between "consolidation" and "amalgamation". Hence if the Legislature thought that for the promotion of thrift self-help and mutual aid the appropriate authority must have power to consolidate Co-operative Societies, its action cannot be challenged as invalid because it is in conformity with the preamble. The question is ultimately one of policy for the Legislature to decide, and the Court cannot by mere interpretation restrict amalgamation to voluntary amalgamation only... 22. In H. Puttappa and others v. The State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1978 Kar 148 , it was observed: 10. The principles being thus explained, let us turn to the co-operative movement in our country. Long before the Constitution came into force, the co-operative movement in this country was regulated and governed by an Act called "the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912." If we peruse the provisions of that Act, it becomes clear that the Indian Co-operative movement was never a spontaneous development in its formal phase. It was a creation of the statute which has its object the promotion of the economic interests of its members in accordance with the co-operative principles (See S. 4 of the 1912 Act). It was no doubt a democratic body, but the Registrar had always a large measure of control. That appears to be the scheme of every co-operative movement made from time to time. It was Government initiated and has since its inception been largely nurtured and guided by the Government. That has become inevitable in the context of widespread poverty and illiteracy among the rural population. The provisions of the Act are in pari materia with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. S. 47 of the 1912 Act, like S. 112 herein, prohibited the use of word "cooperative" by any person for trading purpose unless the cooperative society was registered. The provisions of the Act are in pari materia with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. S. 47 of the 1912 Act, like S. 112 herein, prohibited the use of word "cooperative" by any person for trading purpose unless the cooperative society was registered. S. 39 of the 1912 Act, like S. 72, herein provided for compulsory dissolution of societies. We are referring to these provisions only to show that the "cooperative principles" as mooted by Robert Owen or Rochdale Pioneers with all their pristine purity of voluntaryism had never existed in this country at least for the promotion of economic interests. It, however, remained as a welfare movement aiming at the betterment of the poor man's lot. Its principles, according to us, are no more than the rules of business varying from time to time by statutory enactments keeping, of course, undisturbed the democratic structure of the organisation. Preface: Page viii Co-operative Movement in India by E.M. Hough. Indeed, in the context of planning where period is fixed to achieve certain objectives, voluntary principle in the co-operative movement has perforce to undergo modification. The official rod has to intervene to introduce certain amount of compulsion or control to bring speedy results. Such compulsion or control was all the more found to be necessary and justified in this country since the State or Reserve Bank or other financial institutions have been major partners in most of the credit co-operative societies. R.D. Bedi in his book "Theory, History and Practice of Co-operation", See-Theory, History and Practice of Co-operation by R.D. Bedi, 9th Revised Edition, 1974 page 27. states: In these days, when free enterprise is giving place to planned economy, there seems to be little room for a strict adherence to the policy of laissez-faire. Planning envisages the fixation of targets with a certain amount of surety about their achievement. Voluntary principle, which leaves the acceptance of schemes to the sweet will of the people, does not seem to fit in the system of planning. Late Prof. D.G. Karve once remarked that, "In the overall context of a planned society in which direction by the State is elementary, its voluntary character becomes a historical, not a fundamental feature of co-operation." The planning Committee (1964) also remarked that voluntary principle hampered planning and must undergo some modification. Late Prof. D.G. Karve once remarked that, "In the overall context of a planned society in which direction by the State is elementary, its voluntary character becomes a historical, not a fundamental feature of co-operation." The planning Committee (1964) also remarked that voluntary principle hampered planning and must undergo some modification. It also recommended that in certain kinds of societies for example, consolidation of holdings, irrigation and farming societies, resolution passed by two-thirds majority should be binding on the remaining person also. 11. The voluntary principle is no doubt a precious asset of the co-operative movement and should remain as a golden rule, but then, it cannot be held to be a constraint on the plenary powers of legislation under entry 32, List II. The principles of co-operation must be left to the good sense of our elected representatives and responsible Government. 23. In Pathumma v. State of Kerala, (1978) 2 SCC 1 , it was observed: 6. It is obvious that the Legislature is in the best position to understand and appreciate the needs of the people as enjoined by the Constitution to bring about social reforms for the upliftment of the backward and the weaker sections of the society and for the improvement of the lot of poor people. The Court will, therefore, interfere in this process only when the statute is clearly violative of the right conferred on the citizen under Part III of the Constitution or when the Act is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature or such other grounds. It is for this reason that the Courts have recognised that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the onus to prove its invalidity lies on the party which assails the same. In the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, (1959) SCR 629, while adverting to this aspect Das, C.J. as he then was, speaking for the Court observed as follows: The pronouncements of this Court further establish, amongst other things, that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and that the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. The Courts, it is accepted, must presume that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It is in the light of these principles that we have to approach the impact of the Act on the fundamental rights of the citizen conferred on him by Part III of the Constitution..... 24. As regards A.P. Dairy's case (supra), the fact situation therein was different. The 1995 Andhra Act continued to operate in addition to 1964 Act. Societies registered under the 1995 Act were selectively sought to be governed by 1964 Act, which was held to be impermissible. In the end of the judgment it was observed: 63. The legislature has a right to amend the 1995 Act or repeal the same. Even for the sake of the argument, if it is considered that the legislature was competent to exclude the milk cooperative dairies from the operation of the 1995 Act and such an Act was valid i.e. not being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, etc. the question does arise as to whether the legislature could force the society registered under the 1995 Act to work under the 1964 Act. Importing the fiction to the extent that the societies registered under the 1995 Act, could be deemed to have been registered under the 1964 Act tantamounts to forcing the members of the society to act under compulsion/direction of the State rather than on their free will. Such a provision is violative of the very first basic principles of cooperatives. More so, the Act is vitiated by non-application of mind and irrelevant and extraneous considerations. 25. Situation here is different. The 2001 Act has been repealed and 1962 Act has been made applicable to all societies covered by the Repeal Act. Moreover, repeal is on account of legislative policy of retaining one legislation which has been amended in 2012 to be brought in conformity with 97th Amendment to the Constitution in 2011, thereby safeguarding principles of Democracy and professional management. In A.P. Dairy's case (supra), the earlier Andhra Act had not been amended to be made consistent with 97th Constitutional Amendment nor the later Act was repealed. Applicability of earlier State Act was not by way of transitional provisions. 26. In A.P. Dairy's case (supra), the earlier Andhra Act had not been amended to be made consistent with 97th Constitutional Amendment nor the later Act was repealed. Applicability of earlier State Act was not by way of transitional provisions. 26. In view of above, we are unable to hold that the Repeal Act suffers from any infirmity. The writ petition is dismissed. However, in view of stay granted by this Court earlier, the period stipulated in the impugned Act will be counted from this date for the purpose of taking steps including amendment of bye-law and reconstitution of Board of Directors as mentioned in the Act. Petition dismissed.