J.P. RAVIDAS AND ORS.versusNAVYUVAK HARIJAN UTHAPAN MULTI UNITS INDUSTRIAL COOP. SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.

                          J.P. RA VIDAS AND ORS.                                  A
                                         v.
 NAVYUVAK HARIJAN UTHAPAN MULTI UNITS INDUSTRIAL
           COOP. SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.

                                   APRIL 12, 1996
                                                                                  B
           [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B.·PATTANAIK, JJ.]

      Co11stitutio11 of J11dia :

       Altic/es 19(1)(3), 21, 38, 39(b), 46-AlloDnenl of land lo Co-operative     C
Housi11g Society for members of Scheduled Castes~Bye-laws of society
presclibing membership 80% to members of Scheduled Castes a11d 20% to
others-Held the benefit of economic empowennent having been given to the
membei> of Scheduled Castes a11d they havi11g secured the property, neither
the Presidmt of Society nor a11ybody else has 1ight to induct any member other
than presclibed percentage-The very object of providing two acres of p1ime        D
land belonging to Govenunent is to an1eliorate econon1ic conditions of 'dalits'
providing 1ight of residence, which is one of the funda1nental and hunian
1ights to those persons who cannot afford to purchase lands constrnct house
thereon. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A1ticle 25( 1); International
co1•e1wnt on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, A1ticle II (I).          E
      Olga Tellis & 01». v. Bombay Municipal Co1]Joratio11 & Ors., [1985] 3
SCC 545; M/s. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame & Ors.,
[1990] 1 SCC 520; P.C. Gupta v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1995] Supp. 2
SCC 182; Chame/i Singh & Ors. Etc. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (1996) 1 Scales
101 and Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwa11ath Pa11du Barde & A11r.,           F
[1995] Supp. 2 SCC 549, referred to.

      Co-operative Societies.

      Co-operative housing society for members of Scheduled Caste,-Bye-           G
laws of society providint membership to consist 80% of members of
Scheduled Caste and 20% others-Land allotted by Govemmmt Oil conces-
sional rates-Applicatiolls for e11rolment as ·;nembers invited-Applical!ls
belonging to 1101!-Scheduled Castes being more a11d members of Scheduled
Castes being less than their respective percentage-Order of Registrar Co-
operative Societies to enroll all the applicants-Held, enrolment of members       H
                                       301
    302                    SUPREME COURT RHORTS IJ996J SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   to be do11e according to byc-laws"-{)rdcrs of the Registrm-Co-operutive
    Societies and of the High Court are unconstitutional and are set
    aside-Society should invite applications froni Scheduled Caste candidates to
    make up 1he shm1fall-Mo11ey of 11011-Scheduled Castes in excess of their
    percentage should be retunied.

B         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7748 of 1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1 L.93 of the Bombay High
    Court in A. No. 790 of 1993.

          U.K Bachawat, R.B. Masodkar and Mrs. Vrinda Dhar for the ap-
c pellants.
          S.K. Dholakia, AK. Srivastava and S.M. Jadhav for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

D         Leave granted.

          We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

           This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated November
    8, 1993 made in Appeal No. 790/93 by the Bombay High Court. The
E   admitted facts are that a society by name '.'lavyuvak Harajin Utthapan Multi
    Unit Industrial Coop. Society Ltd. was formed on June 7, 1979. It was
    registered under the Cooperative Societies Act for industrial purpose. The
    Government have allotted to the said Society two acres of land at Bhandup
    (East), Survey No. 246 (pt.) of Kanjur village for construction of housing
F   colony for accommodating the members of the Society at concessional rates
    keeping in view the welfare of the Harijan community. This order came to
    be pasoed by the Government of India on January 18, J 995. ll would appear
    that originally the membership of the Society consisted of 28 members
    belonging to Scheduled Castes (for short, 'Dalits') and 5 O.B.C. members.
    It is not in dispute that as per the bye-laws the membership should consist
G   of 80% dalits and 20% others. Originally, the membership was intended to
    be 112. Consequently, 90 members should be dalits and 22 members should
    be non-dalits. It is now an admitted position that the respondent-Society
    does not have 90 dalits members as per the bye-laws. It would appear that
    one Bal Krishna, who was then the President of the Society, had invited
H   applications for enrolment. Consequently, 78 persons are said to have
        J.P. RAVIDAS v. N.H.U. MULTI UNITS INDL. CO-OP. SOCY. LTD. 303

    made applicatiom for enrolment. It would appear that the Registrar of A

-   Cooperative Societies had directed the Society to enrol all of them as
    members of the Society. When the appellant, a members had objected to
    the same, the objection was over-ruled, which was ultimately negatived by
    the High Court directing that all the 78 persons are directed to be enrolled
    as members of the Society. Thus this appeal by special leave.
                                                                                   B
          Shri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for 78 persons and
    for the builder contended that no corresponding amendment to be bye-
    laws of the Society was made to the effect that members of the Society
    should consist of 90 dalits and 22 others. In its absence, the High Court
    was right in directing to enrol non-dalit members as members of the            C
    Society. We are unable to appreciate the stand.

           The very object of providing two acres of pr_ime land belonging to
    the Government is to ameliorate the economic conditions of the dalits
    providing right of residence,which is one of the fundamental and human         D
    rights to those persons who cannot afford to purchase the site and con-
    struct the flats thereon. Article 19(1)(e) read with Article 21 of the Con-
    stitution provide right to residence and settlement to live with dignity of
    person - a fundamental and human right. Articles 46, 39 and 38 enjoin the
    State to provide facilities and opportunities of construction of houses by
    the Dalits, Tribes and poor to enable them to live with dignity in permanent   E
    abode. Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
    Article 11 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
    Cultural Rights, 1966 provides that everyone has the food, clothing and
    right to housing as a part of human right and the State parties recognise
    the said right and would take appropriate steps to ensure realisation of the   F
    right to housing.

           In Mis. Shalllistar Bui/den v. Narayan Khi111alal Totame & Ors., [J.990J
    1 SCC 520 a three-Judge Bench of this Court while permitting the
    disposal of the excess urban land under the· Urban Land Ceiling Act G
    held that the basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be
    food, clothing and shelter. Right lo life is guaranteed in every civilised
    society which would take within its sweep right to food, clothing and
    decent environment and a reasonable acco1nmodation to live in. For
    h11nifin beings, suitable accommodation would allow him to grow physi-
    cally, mentally and intellectually. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller H
    304                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A development of every child which would be possible only if an appropriate
    house is provided.

           In Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & 01~., [1985]
    3 SCC 545 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that right to life includes
B   right to residence. Right to residence is a part of life enshrined in Article
    21. In P.C. Gupta" State of Gujarat & o,,., [1995] Supp. 2 SCC 182 another
    Bench of three judges of this Court held that right to residence and
    settlement is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (e) and protection
    of life guaranteed by Article 21 emcompasses within its ambit right to
    shelter to enjoy the meaningful right to life. Right to equality of status and
c   right to social and economic justice and dignity of person assures dignity
    of life guaranteed by Article 21. In Chameli Singh & Ors. Etc. v. State of
    U.P. & Anr., [1996] 1 SCALE 101 another three-Judge Bench of this Court
    held that the right to economic empowerment enjoins the State under
    Article 46 to promote social, economic and educational interests of the
D   Dalits, the Tribes, the backward classes and the poor. Right to social and
    economic justice conjointly co-mingles with right to shelter as an in-
    separable component for meaningful right to life. Providing house sites and
    houses in implementation of the directives contained in Articles 28 and 39
    (b) of the Constitution was upheld. In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v.
    Vishwanath Pandu Barde & Anr. [1995] Supp. 2 SCC 549, this Court has
E   held that right to economic empowerment to the Scheduled Tribes as
    enshrined under Article 46 of the Constitution is a fundamental hnman
    right under Articles 1, 3, 17, 22 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of
    Human Rights, 1948. The State is enjoined under Declaration on Right to
    Development to provide facilities and opportunities consistent with Article
F   38 of the Constitution. Under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution, the State
    is enjoined to distribute the material resources of the community to sub-
    serve the common goods. All human rights are derived from dignity and
    worth of man. Democracy blossoms the person's full freedom to achieve
    excellence. The socio-economic content in directive principles is all per-
  vasive to make the right lo life meaningful to all Indian citizens. Welfare
G is actually a form of liberty inasmnch as it liberates man from social
  conditions which narrow their choices and brighten their self development
  in a world of vastly unequal opportunities, where some are ban< into
  relative affluence and others into a subsistence economy. Liberation does
  not mean providing mere liberty but facilities to prevent their exploitation
H through all legitimate means so as to relieve the disadvantaged from
    J.P. RAVIDAS v. N.H.U. MULTI UNITS INDL. CO-OP. SOCY. LTD. 305

perpetual inequities. Democracy is workable as long as there is a substan-   A
tial area of shared values and aspirations among the people and where they
have the maturity to rise above differences.

      It was, therefore, obligated on the State to provide adequate means
of livelihood to all citizens distributing the material resources of the
                                                                               B
community for common welfare. The ultimate object of the Directive
Principles is to liberate the Indian masses, free them from centuries old
coercion, ignorance, abject conditions and to prevent exploitation. The
Union of India in implementation of the above Directive Principles in
Article 39(b) and in discharge of its obligation under Articles 38 and 46 to
provide facilities and opportunities to the Dalits, has allotted two acres of c
land in Bombay City for construction of houses to make their right to
settlement and life meaningful, to enable them to live with dignity of
person; and provided economic empowerment of settled residence to enjoy
the right to meaningful life. The benefit of economic empowerment having
been given to these members and they having secured the property, neither D
the President of the Society nor the builder has any right to induct any
member other than the prescribed percentage as per the bye-laws. It is
necessary to follow that the Society should consist of 90 Dalit members and
22 outsiders. Any contract or action which is opposed to constitutional
animation and public policy is void. The action of the President of the
Society and enrolment of non-dalits defeats the purpose of the Government E
of India behind giving the land for construction of houses by dalits. There-
fore, the direction of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies would defeat
the public policy. Any action taken in violation thereof is void. Accordingly,
the orders of the High Court and the Registrar are unconstitutional and
are set aside.
                                                                              F
      The Registrar is directed to conduct an enquiry and identify as to
how many among 78 1ne1nbcrs are c.lalits and direct their enrolment as
 members of the Society. All others in excess of 22 of non-dalits consisting
 of 5 OBCs, initially enrolled as members and 17 among the rest of lhe
 non-dalits be enrolled as members of the society. The Society should invite G
_applications from the dalits to make up the shortfall of 90 dalit members
 of the Society and to pay the cost of the flats conslrncted on the land
 alloted by the Government. If non-members have contributed any money
 for the construction, it is obvious that the amount should be returned to
 them wilh interest. Non-dalit members should be accommodated only H
    306                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. l S.C.R.

A   against the 20% quota available to them on the basis of any mode like draw
    of lots or seniority in the matter of enrolment or on the basis of promptness
    in paying the construction cost etc. as may be devised by the Registrar.

          The Management of the Society is directed to place the entire
    material before the Registrar. The Registrar after giving notice to all the
B   persons and hearing them, will decide as to who are dalits among 78
    persons and wlio arc non-dalits and decide the matter accmdingly within
    three months and submit the report to the Registry of this Court.

           The Appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without

c costs.
    R.P.                                                        Appeal allowed.