SATYA PAL ANANDversusSTATE OF M.P. & ANR.

                      [2014] 6 S.C.R. 1


                    SATYA PAL ANAND                              A
                              v.
                  STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
        (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 33644/2011

                        MAY 6, 2014
                                                                 B
           [ANIL R. OAVE AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

      M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - s.3 - Co-
operative Society -Appointment of Registrar uls.3 - Validity
of s.3 - Challenged - Held: Most of the functions of the C
Registrar are in the sphere of administration and governance
with few additional duties having quasi-judicial character - In
such a situation and more particularly when a tribunal is
constituted with all the trappings of a court, with power to hear
appeals from the orders of the Registrar or his nominee, no o
fault found with s.3 of the Act empowering the Government to
appoint persons as Registrars, Joint Registrars, Deputy
Registrars and Assistant Registrars etc. not necessarily with
legal I judicial background - Challenge to vires of s.3
rejected.                                                         E
      M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - s. 3 - Co-
 operative Society - Need for appointment of suitable persons
.as Registrar, Joint Registrar etc. and Chairman and members
 of Co-operative tribunal - Direction given that the State
 Government shall, keep in mind the objective of the Act, the F
 functions which the Registrar, Joint Registrar etc. are required
 to perform and commensurate with those, appointment of
 suitable persons shall be made - Likewise, having regard to
 the fact that the Chairman of the Tribunal is to be a judicial
 person, namely, Former Judge of the High Court or the District G
 Judge, for appointment of the Chairman and the Members of
 the Trib'unal, the respondent-State is duty bound to keep in
 mind and follow the mandate of the Supreme Court judgment
 in R. Gandhi case - For appointment of the Chairman and
                              1                                  H
    2        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 6 S.C.R.


A   Members of the Tribunal, selection to these posts be
    preferably made by the Public Service Commission in
    consultation with the High Court.
        M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - s.77(3)(b)
  - Co-operative Tribunal - Composition of - Members of the
8
  tribunal appointed as per s. 77 (3) (b) - Validity of s. 77(3)(b)
  - Held: Valid - Scheme shows that out of the two Members,
  one would be 'administrative member' and other may be a
  'judicial member' though such nomenclature is not
  specifically assigned - The tribunal consists of a former
C Judge as Chairman, one member who has held high office
  of Joint Registrar in the department and the other member
  either with the legal background or a person closely
  associated with cooperative movement - No fault with the
  provision.
D
        M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - s. 77(6) -
  Co-operative Tribunal - s. 77(6) giving power to the State
  Government to terminate appointment of the Chairman or a
  Member - Validity of s. 77(6) - Challenge to - Held: Power
E u/s. 77(6) is to be exercised only when the State Government
  forms an opinion about the inability or unfitness of such
  Chairman or Member to perform the duties of his office - The
  opinion may be subjective but has to be based on objective
  consideration/material on record - It is not an omnibus or
  unguided/uncanalyzed power conferred upon the Government
F - Further, the decision is always subject to judicial review -
  Besides, proviso to sub-section (6) of s. 77 provides additional
  safeguards which mandate following procedure in
  consonance with principle of natural justice by giving
  reasonable opportunity of show cause against s.uch
G termination - Final opinion to be formed only after eliciting
  and considering the defence - Therefore, no reason to hold
  such a provision as unconstitutional.
      The petitioner filed Writ petition in the High Court,
H challenging the validity of Section 3 of the M.P. State Co-
    SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.               3


operative Societies Act, 1960 to the extent this provision     A
permitted the State Government to appoint the Registrar
of the Co-operative Society, as well as Additional
Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant
Registrar etc. The petitioner also challenged proviso
added to Section 77 (3)(b) and Section 77 (6) of the Act       B
as unconstitutional. The grievance of the petitioner was
that these provisions provided for appointment of
persons not having any education in law, though
discharging the judicial function, which was
impermissible and ex-facie violative of Art. 14 and 2~ of      c
the Constitution.

     The High Court repelled the challenge of the
petitioner to the vires of the aforesaid provisions of the
Act and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.
Hence the present Special Leave Petition.                      D

     The question that arose for consideration before this
Court was whether it was imperative to appoint a
Registrar with legal and/or judicial backdrop keeping in
view the Scheme of the M.P. State Co-operative Societies       E
Act, 1960.

    Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court

     HELD:1.1. The Registrar under the provisions of the
M.P. Stafe Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is the             F
executive head of the cooperative movement which is
intended to provide strength to the weaker sections of the
community and is based on contribution through an open
door policy. The Registrar is supposed to be "the friend
philosopher and guide" and is required to see that the         G
cooperative movement remains within pre5cribed limit.
However, limited powers are given to the Registrar to
entertain certain kinds of disputes and take decision
thereupon as well. [Paras 7, 8] [12-G-H; 13-A, F]
                                                               H
    4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A      1.2. Most of the powers of the Registrar are
  administrative in nature. While exercising those powers
  the Registrar is not deciding any lis. He is one of the main
  administrative functionaries for the purposes of carrying
  out the objectives of the said Act. At the same time, the
B Registrar is also give some quasi-judicial powers. He,
  also for that matter Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant
  Registrar are, therefore, wearing two hats, with
  predominant role of the administr,ators. It is not the case
  of the petitioner that the judicial function should be taken
c away from the Registrar and assigned to some other
  authority. The petitioner has pleaded for app?intment of
  a person with legal background as Registrar etc. to enable
  him to decide the dispute between the parties more
  effectively, as according to him, any person with no legal/
  judicial background is incapable of deciding those cases.
0
  However, same arguments can be pressed by other side
  in a reverse situation. If a person with legal background .
  is appointed to any of these posts, then his appointment
  can be challenged on the ground that such a person
  though would be fit to discharge the quasi·judicial duties,
E but totally unfit to discharge other administrative duties
  which are the primary and day to day duties attached to
  the said office. [Para 11] [15-E-H; 16-A-B]

       1.3. It is not a case where order of the Registrar,
F deciding the dispute, was made final. That is not so. In
  fact, under Chapter X of the Act, M.P. State Cooperative
  Tribunal is constituted. This Tribunal consists of the
  Chairman and two other Members. In so far as Chairman
  is concerned, Section 77 (3) (a) unambiguously provides
G that no person shall be qualified to be the Chairman of
  the Tribunal unless he had been a Judge of a High Court
  or has held the office of a District Judge for not less than
  5 years. Likewise, in respect of two Members of the
  Tribunal, Section 77 (3) (b) contains a clear stipulation
H that one of them shall be an officer of Cooperative
    SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.               5


Department.not below the rank of Joint Registrar, and the A
other shall be non-official closely associated with the
cooperative movement or an Advocate or a pleader
having practical experience for a period of not less than
15 years. With such a composition of the Tribunal, which
is given power to hear appeals from the orders of the B
Registrar or his nominee, the apprehension of the
petitioner is adequately taken care of. In addition to
hearing the appeals from the orders of the Registrar, the
Tribunal is also given power of revision and review.
Similar schemes are provided in various other statutes C
wherein at the first ladder of the lis, powers .are given to
the administrative authorities to decide the same with
provision for appeal against those orders. Since most of
the functions of the Registrar are in the sphere of
administration and governance with few additional duties
                                                              0
having quasi judicial character, in such a situation and
more particularly when a Tribunal is constituted with all
the trappings of a court, no fault is found with the
provision of Section 3 of the Act empowering the
Government to appoint persons as Registrars, Joint
Registrars, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars E
etc. not necessarily with legal I judicial background.
Challenge to the vires of Section 3 of the Act is, therefore,
rejected. [Paras 12, 13] (16-C-G; 17-A-C]

     1.4. In so far as the provisions of Section 77 (3) (b)    F
and Section 77 (6) of the Act are concerned, there is hardly
any reason to hold these provisions as unconstitutional.
Section 77 deals with the Cooperative Tribunal. This
tribunal consists of a Chairman and two other Members.
Chairman is to be a person with judicial background. No        G
person is qualified to be the Chairman of the Tribunal
unless he had been a Judge of a High Court or who held
the office of the District Judge for not less than 5 years.
Two Members of the tribunal are to be appointed as per
the impugned provisions namely Section 77 (3) (b) of the       H
    6        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2014] 6 S.C.R.


A   Act. Scheme shows that out of the two, one would be
    'administrative member' and other may be a 'judicial
    member' though such nomenclature is not specifically
    assigned. However, it becomes clear from the provision
    which provides that one of the members would be the
B   person not below the rank of Joint Registrar. It clearly
    shows that he would be a person who would have
    worked as Joint Registrar and in that capacity gained
    experience on administrative side about the functioning
    of the cooperative societies. In that capacity, he would
C   have also gained some e~pet'rience of deciding the
    disputes between the pai;ties which could be assigned
    to him. Other member is to ·be non-offici.al and he/ she
    could be the person who is closely associated with the
    cooperative movement or an Advocate or a pleader with
    practical experience for a period of not less than 15 years.
0
    Therefore, other members can be a person with legal
    background. In nutshell, the tribunal consists of a former
    Judge as Chairman, one member who has held high
    office of Joint Registrar in the department and the other
    member either with the legal background or a person
E   closely associated with cooperative movement. There i_s,
    thus, no fault with this provision as well. [Para 14] [17-0-
    H; 18-A-B]

        1.5. In so far as Section 77 (6) of the Act is
F concerned, it gives power to the State Government to _
  terminate the appointment of the Chairman or a member
  if, in its opinion, such Chairman or Member is unable or
  unfit to perform the duty of his office. Thus, this power
  is given only when the State Government forms such an
G opinion about the inability or unfitness of such Chairman
  or Member to perform the duties of his office. This
  opi.nion may be subjective but has to be based on
  objective consideration/material on record. Since the
  State Government is the appointing authority, power to
H remove has to necessarily vest in the appointing
   SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.                 7


authority. It is not an omnibus or unguided/uncanalyzed         A
power conferred upon the Government. Further, the
decision is always subject to judicial review. In a given
case if the power is exercised arbitrarily or without any
material on the basis of which such an opinion is formed,
it can be remedied by the court of law. Further proviso         B
to this sub-section (6) of Section 77 provides an
additional safeguards which mandates following
procedure in consonance with principle of natural justice
by giving reasonable opportunity of show cause against
such termination. Thus, when such an action is                  C
contemplated, the Government is under an obligation to
issue show cause notice which would necessarily
contain the reasons/material on the basis of which, a
belief is nurtured that such Chairman or Member would
be unable or unfit to continue to perform the duties of his     D.
office. It would be open to the noticee to refute the same
by giving suitable reply. Final opinion would be formed
only after eliciting and considering the defence.
Therefore, there is no reason to hold such a provision as
unconstitutional. [Para 15] [18-C-H; 19-A]
                                                                E
    Thakur Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd: AIR 1967 SC 1494: 1967 SCR 163; Mukri Gopalan
v. Cheppilat Puthampurayil Aboobacker AIR 1995 SC 2272:
1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 1; P. Sara thy v. State Bank of India AIR
2000 SC 2023: 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 402; UOI v. R.Gandhi F
President Madras Bar Assn., (2010) 11 SCC 1 and State of
Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Assn., (2012) 10 ·
sec 353 - held inapplicable.
    Namit Sharma v. UOI, (2013) 1 SCC 745 - held partly
reviewed.                                                       G
      Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Supreme Court
decision dated 3rd September, 2013 in Review Petition (C)
"!o. 2309 of 2012) and Indian National Congress (I) vs.
Institute of Social Welfare & Ors. 2002 (5) SCC 685: 2002 (3)
SCR 1040 - relied on.                                           H
    8       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A       Maharashtra Co-operative Courts Bar Association,
    Bombay & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990 Mah.L.J.
    1064 - referred to.

      2.1. There is need for appointment of suitable
  persons not only as Registrar, Joint Registrar etc. but as
8
  Chairman and members of the tribunal as well. While
  discharging quasi-judicial functions Registrar, Joint
  Registrars etc. have to keep i.n mind that they have to be
  independent in their functioning, They are also expected
  to acquire necessary expertise to effectively deal with the
C disputes coming before them. They are supposed to be
  conscious of competing rights in order to decide the
  case justly and fairly and to pass the orders which are
  legally sustainable. [Para 19] [21-H; 22-A-B]

D       2.2. It is directed that the State Government shall,
   keep in mind the objective of the Act, the functions which
   the. Registrar, Joint Registrar etc. are required to perform
   and commensurate with those, appointment of suitable
   persons shall be made. Likewise, having regard to the
E fact that the Chairman of the Tribunal is to be a judiCial
 • person, namely, Former Judge of the High Court or the
   District Judge, for appointment of th-e Chairman and the
   Members of the Tribunal, the respondent-State is duty
   bound to keep in mind and follow the mandate of the
F Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in R.Gandhi.
   Thus, for appointment of the Chairman and Members of
   the Tribunal, the selection to these posts should
    •
   preferably   be made by the Public Service Commissio.n in
   consultation with the High Court. [Para 20] [22-A-C]
G       UOJ v. R. Gandhi President Madras Bar Assn., (2010) 11
    sec 11 - relied on.
                          Case Law Reference:
        1967 SCR 163              held inapplicable Para 9
H
    SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.                   9. .


    1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 1       held                Para 9           A
                                inapplicable
    2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 402held                     Para 9
                           inapplicable
    1990 Mah.L.J. 1064          referred to         Para 10          B
    c2010) 11 sec 1             held                Para 10
                                inapplicable
    c2012) 10 sec 353           held                Para 10
                                inapplicable                         c
    (2013) 1 sec 745 ·          held partly         Para 10
                                reviewed
     2002 (3) SCR 1040          relied on           Para 18
                                                                     D
    c2010) 11 sec 1             relied on           Para 20
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 33644 of 2011.

    From the Judgment and order dated 03.08.2011 of the              E
High Court of M. P. at Jabalpur in WP No. 6729 of 2009.

    Petitioner-in-person.

    Naveen Sharma, Swati B. Sharma, Mishra Saurabh for the
respondents.                                                         F

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     A.K.SIKRI, J. 1. The petitioner herein had filed Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in the nature G
of Public Interest Litigation. In that petition, the petitioner has
challenged the validity of Section 3 of the M.P. State Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the .
Act) to the extent this provision permits the State Government
                                                                     H
     1.0      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A to appoint the Registrar of the Co-operative Society, as well
  as Mditional Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar,
  Assistant Registrar etc. The petitioner also challenged proviso
  added to Section 77 (3)(b) and Section 77 (6) of the Act as
  unconstitutional. To put it succinctly, the grievance of the
B petitioner was that these provisions provide for appointment of
  persons not having any education in law, though discharging
  the judicial function, which was impermissible and ex-facie
  violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner had
  even given suggestion to the effect that the appointments of
.cthese presiding officers be made in manner presiding officers
  of the labour courts are appointed.

        2. The Writ Petition was contested by the respondents on
  various grounds. In the first place, the very maintainability of the
  Writ Petition was assailed on the ground that the petitioner had
D not approached the High Court with clean hands and had
  suppressed the fact that he was a chronic litigant whose various
  cases were pending before the Cooperative Court. Therefore,
  he had personal interest in the matter. As such, he was not
  competent to file the Writ Petition in the nature of PIL. On
E merits, it was submitted that such Registrar, Addi. Registrar etc.
  function under the supervision of M.P. State Cooperative
  Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'). The Chairman of the Tribunal
  is a judicial officer. Again, both these authorities function under
  the over all superintendence of the High Court under Art.227
F of the Constitution. In several other enactments the
  administrative officers perform such quasi judicial functions.

       3. After considering the submissions of both the parties,
  the High Court repelled the challenge of the petitioner to the
G vires of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and dismissed the
  Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.

       4. Against the aforesaid judgment, present Special Leave
  Petition is preferred under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The
  petitioner has appeared in person and filed written
H submissions. At the time of arguments, he referred to and read
   SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.                   11
                [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
out certain portion of those written submissions and submitted     A
that he did not have to say anything more than what is contained
therein. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other
hand relied upon the reasoning given by the High Court in the
impugned judgment to justify the said order. We have perused
the judgment minutely and have also gone through the written       B
submissions of the petitioner.

     5. Before adverting to these submissions, we would like
to reproduce the provisions of the Act which are subject matter
of the present challenge:
                                                                   c
    "3. Registrar and other officers.-

    (1) The State Government shall appoint a person to be the
    Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State and may
    appoint one or more officers of the following categories       D
    to assist him, namely:

    (a) Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies;

    (b) Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies;
                                                                   E
    (c) Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies;

    (d) Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies;

    (e) Such other categories of officers as may be prescribed.
                                                                   F
    )()()()()()( )()()()()()( xxxxxx''

    77.Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal.

     (3) (b) Of the other two members, one shall be an officer
     of Co-operative Department not below the rank of Joint        G
    ·Registrar and the other shall be non-official closely
     associated with co-operative movement or an Advocate
     or a Pleader having practical experience for a period of
     not less than fifteen years:
                                                                   H
    12       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A        Provided that if the State Government thinks fit, the Tribunal
         may consist of a single person.

               xxxx                    xxxxx                   xxxxx
         (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4)
B        the State Government may terminate at any time, the
         appointment of the Chairman or a member if, in its opinion,
         such Chairman or member is unable or unfit to constitute
         to perform the duties of his office:

c        Provided that no appointment shall be terminated under
         this sub-section unless the person whose appointment is
         proposed to be terminated is given reasonable opportunity
         of showing cause against such termination."

        6. With this, now let us first deal with the argument
D pertaining to the validity of Section 3 of the Act. As is clear from
  .the above, Section 3 deals with appointment of the Registrar
   of Co-operative Societies as well as Additional Registrar, Joint
   Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar etc. As
   mentioned above, the plea of the petitioner is that since
E Registrar and other officers are performing judicial function
   under the Act, any person to be appointed as Registrar, Joint
   Registrar etc. has to be necessarily a law person, namely, a
   person who has education in law and is well equipped to
   discharge such adjudicatory functions.                     ·
F
         7. In order to appreciate this contention, we will have to
  look into the functioning of the Office of Registrar under the Act.
  It is elaborately explaitled in the impugned judgment of the High
  Court and no quarrel was made by the petitioner in respect of
G that portion of the judgment explaining the scheme of the Act.
  Therefore, we can briefly restate the same. Registrar under the
  provisions of the Act is the executive head: of the cooperative
  movement which is intended to provide strength to the weaker
  sections of the community and is based on contribution through
  an open door policy. The Registrar is supposed to be "the
H friend philosopher and guide" and is required to see that the
     SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.                    13
                  [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
  cooperative movement remains within prescribed limit. Sections A
  8 and 9 of the Act empower the Registrar to deal with the
  question of registration of a society. Under Section 10 of the
  Act, the Registrar has the power to classify the societies
  whereas Sections 11 and 12 of the Act deal with the power of
  Registrar with regard to amendment of bye-laws· of the society. B
  Section 18 empowers the Registrar to direct cancellation of
  registration of the society whereas under Section 18-A of the
  Act the Registrar can order de-registration of societies. Under
  Section 19-A of the Act, the Registrar may declare a person
  ineligible for membership of the society. Section 49-D of the       c
  Act deals with the power of the Registrar to give direction to
  the society to make regulations. Section 53 of the Act
  empowers the Registrar to order suppression of the committee
  of the society in the contingencies mentioned in sub-se.ction (1)
  of Section 53. Under the aforesaid provisions, thus, the
                                                                    0
  Registrar is discharging pure administrative functions. Section
  57 of the Act deals with the power of Registrar to seize records
  of the society in the circumstances which have been specified
  in sub-section (1) of Section 57. Section 58 deals with the
  power of Registrar to audit or cause to be audited by a person E
  authorized by Section 59 of the Act empowers the Registrar
. to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the society in the'
  circumstances enumerated in Section 59(1).
       8. However, limited powers are given to the Registrar to
 entertain certain kinds of disputes and take decision thereupon      F
 as well. One such provision is Section 55 of the Act which, inter-
 alia, provides that regarding terms of employment, 'working
 conditions and disciplinary action taken by a Society, if a
 dispute arises between a Society and its employees, the
 Registrar or any officer appointed by him (not below the rank        G
 of Assistant Registrar) shall decide the dispute. Likewise,
 Section 64 of the Act provides that the Registrar shall decide
 the dispute touching upon the Constitution, management or
 business, terms and conditions of employment of a Society or
 the liquidation of the Society.
                                                                      H
    14        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 6 S.C.R. ·


A        9. The question that falls for consideration is whether it
    becomes imperative to appoint a Registrar with legal and/or
    judicial backdrop keeping in view the aforesaid Scheme of the
    Act? In an endeavour to justify the appointment of a legal person
    to man this office, the petitioner submitted that the very nature
8 and significance of the functions discharged by the Registrar
    or his nominee, would manifest that knowledge of law and
    practice is dispensable to effectively carry out those functions
    inasmuch as such presiding officer is supposed to be
    conversant with the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, Law
C of Evidence, Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure,
    etc. It was further submitted that the functions are such that
    authority discharging such function is to be classified as "court"
    and it is so held by this Court in the case of Thakur Jugal
    Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. AIR 1967
    SC 1494. This decision is followed subsequently in Mukri
D · Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthampurayil Aboobacker AIR 1995
    SC 2272 and P.Sarathy v. State Bank of India AIR 2000 SC
    2023.

       10. The petitioner also submitted that the Bombay High
E Court in the case of Maharashtra Co-operative Courts Bar
  Association, Bombay & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
  1990 Mah.L.J. 1064 has held that presiding officer of the
  cooperative court form cadre of subordinate courts as
  understood by Art.234 of the Constitution of India and State
F Government will have to take action to make appointment of
  these presiding officer in accordance with the direction
  contained in the said Article. In other words, it would mean that
  they can be selected by the Maharashtra Public Service
  Commission in consultation with the High Court. On that basis,
G the petitioner pleads that State Government should not be given
  right to appoint any person as the Registrar etc. The petitioner
  also went to the extent of describing these functionaries as the
  "Cooperative Courts" while discharging these duties through no


H
     SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.                         15
                  [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
such nomenclature is provided in the Act. He also submitted                A
that in the State of M.P. functioning of these authorities was
dismal, creating unfortunate and painful situation which was
because the reason that persons appointed were blissful
ignorant about the legal aspects. They were not functioning
"independently" as well, though independence of judiciary was              B
the hallmark of the basic structure of the Constitution. He argued
that with such appointments impartiality, independence,
fairness and reasonableness is threatened and compromised.
In support of this argument, t~e petitioner has referred,to the
following judgments.                                                       c
     (2010) 11 SCC 11 : UO/ v. R. Gandhi President Madras
·Bar Assn.

      (2012) 10 SCC 353: State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue
 Tribunal Bar:, Assn.                                                      D

      (2013) 1 SCC 745: Nam it Sharma v. UOI.

         11. We have already taken note of the Scheme of the Ac;:t
  and the role and functioning of the office of the Registrar under
  the said Scheme. Most of the powers of the Registrar are                 E
  administrative in nature. While exercising those powers the
  Registrar is not deciding any lis. He is one of tlie . ain
-administrative functionaries for the purposes of carryir · c· ...;t .he
. objectives of the said Act. At the same time, the Registrar is
  also give some quasi-judicial powers. He, also for that matter           F
  Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Registrar are, therefore,
  wearing two hats, with predominant role of the administrators.
  It is not the case of the petitioner that the judicial function should
  be taken away from the Registrar and assigned to some other
  authority. The petitioner has pleaded for appointment of a               G
  person with legal background as Registrar etc. to enable him
  to decide the dispute between the parties more effectively, as
  according to him, any person with no legal/judicial background
  is incapable of decidirig those cases. However, same
  arguments can be pressed by other side in a reverse situation.           r'
    16       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A  If a person with legal background is appointed to any of these
  posts, then his appointment can be challenged on the ground
  that such a person though would be fit to discharge the quasi
  judicial duties, but totally unfit to discharge other administrative
  duties which are the primary and day to day duties attached to
B the said office.

         12. We would have still given some weightage to the
    argument of the petitioner, had it been a case where order of
    the Registrar, deciding the dispute, was made final. That is not
    so. In fact, under Chapter X of the Act, M.P. State Cooperative
C   Tribunal is constituted. This Tribunal consists of the Chairman
    and two other Members. In so far as Chairman is concerned,
    Section 77 (3) (a) unambiguously provides that no person shall
    be qualified to be the Chairman of the Tribunal unless he had
    been a Judge of a High Court or has held the office of a District
D   Judge for not less than 5 years. Likewise, in respect of two
    Members of the Tribunal, Section 77 (3) (b) contains a clear
    stipulation that one of them shall be an officer of Cooperative
    Department not below the rank of Joint Registrar, and the other
    shall be non-official closely associated with the cooperative
E   movement or an Advocate or a pleader having practical
    experience for a period of not less than 15 years. With such a!'
    composition of the Tribunal, which is given power to hear
    appeals from the orders of the Registrar or his nominee, the
    apprehension of the petitioner is adequately taken care of .•We,.
F   find that in addition to hearing the appeals from the orders of
    the Registrar, the Tribunal is also given power of revision and
    review. Similar schemes are provided in various other statutes
    wherein at the first ladder of the lis, powers are given to the
    administrative authorities to decide the same with provision for
G   appeal against those orders. One example is Public Premises
    (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971. In such cases
    the orders are passed by the Estate Officer and'the order of
    the Estate Officer is made amenable to challenge before the
    District Judge under Section 9 of that Act. Similar position can
H   be found under the Land Reforms Act and various other Acts.
                                      •
     SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.                     17.
                  [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
       13. We emphasize, at the cost of repetition, that most of       A
 the functions are in the sphere of administration and governance
 with few additional duties having quasi judicial character. In such
 a situation and more particularly when a Tribunal is constituted
 with all the trappings of a court, we do not find any fault with
 the provision of Section 3 of the Act empowering the                  B
 Government to appoint persons as Registrars, Joint Registrars,
 Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars etc. necessarily
 with legal/judicial background. Challenge to the vires of Section
 3 of the Act is, therefore, rejected, upholding the judgment of
 the High Court on this issue for our own reasons given                c
 hereinabove.

       14. In so far as the provisions of Section 77 (3) (b) and
  Section 77 (6) of the Act are concerned, we hardly see any
  reason to hold these provisions as unconstitutional. Section 77      D
  deals with the Cooperative Tribunal. As already pointed out
  above, this tribunal consists of a Chairman and two other
  Members. Chairman is to be a person with judicial background.
  No person is qualified to be the Chairman of the Tribunal unless
  he had b_een a Judge of a High Court or who held the office of
  the District Judge for not less than 5 years. Two Members of         E
,Jheiribunal are to be appointed as per the impugned provisions
· namely Section 77 (3) (b) of the Act .. Scheme shows that out
  of the two, one would be 'administrative member' and other
  may be a 'judicial member' though such nomenclature is not
  specifically assigned. However, it becomes clear from the            F
  provision which provides that one of the members would be the
  person not below the rank of Joint Registrar. It clearly shows
  that he would be a person who would have worked as Joint
  Registrar and in that capacity gained experience on
  administrative side about the functioning of the cooperative         G
  societies. In that capacity, he would have also gair)ed some
  experience of deciding the disputes between the parties which
  could be assigned to him. Other member is to be non-official
  and he/ she could be the person who is closely associated with
  the cooperative movement or an Advocate or a pleader with            H
    18       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014] 6 S.C.R.


A practical experience for a period of not less than 15 years.
  Therefore, other members can be a person with legal
  background. In nutshell, the tribunal consists of a former Judge
  as Chairman, one member who has held high office of Joint
  Registrar in the department and the other member either with
B the legal background or a person closely associated with
  cooperative movement. We, thus, do not find any fault with this
  provision as well.

         15. In so far as Section 77 (6) of the Act is concerned, it
c gives power to the State Government to terminate the
    appointment of the Chairman or a member if, in its 9pinion,
    such Chairman or Member is unable or unfit to perform the duty
    of his office. Thus, this power is given only when the State
    Government forms such an opinion about the inability or
0 unfitness of such Chairman or Member to perform the duties
    of his office. This opinion may be subjective but has to be
    based on objective consideration/material on record. Since the''.
    State Government is the appointing authority, power to remove
    has to necessarily vest in the appointing authority. It is not an
E omnibus or unguided/uncanalyzed power conferred upon the
  . Government. Further, the decision is always subject to judicial
    review. In a given case if the power is exercised arbitrarily or
    without any material on the basis of which such an opinion is
    formed, it can be remedied by the court of law. It is further
    significant to mention that proviso to this sub-section (6) of
F Section 77 provides an additional safeguards which mandates
    following procedure in consonance with principle of natural
    justice by giving reasonable opportunity of show cause against
    such termination. Thus, when such an action is contemplated,
    the Government is under an obligation to issue show cause
G notice which would necessarily contain the reasons/material on
    the basis of which, a belief is nurtured that such Chairman or
    Member would be unable or unfit to continue to perform the
    duties of his office. It would be open to the noticee to refute the
    same by giving suitable reply. Final opinion would be formed
H only after eliciting and considering the defence. Therefore, we
   SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.                     19
                [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
see no reason to hold such a provision as unconstitutional. In       A
fact, in the written submissions filed by the petitioner, there is
no plea or ground taken by the petitioner on the basis of which
the petitioner seeks to condemn 'these provisions. We,
therefore, reject the prayer of the petitioner qua on Section 77
(3) {b) and Section 77 (6) of the Act as well.                       B

     16. Having regard to our aforesaid discussion, various
arguments raised by the petitioner based on the judgments
cited by him are of no benefit as those judgments have no
applicability. No doubt the Registrar exercising powers under
Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act         C
is held to be a Court. It was so stated in the following manner


    "It will be noted from the above that the jurisdiction of the
    ordinary civil and revenue Courts of the land is ousted under    D
    S.57 of the Act in case of disputes which fell under S.48.
    A Registrar exercising powers under S.48 must, therefore,
    be held to discharge the duties which would otherwise
    have fallen on the ordinary civil and revenue Courts of the
    land. The Registrar has not merely the trappings of a Court      E
    but in many respects he is given the same powers as are
    given to ordinary civil Courts of the land by the Code of
    Civil Procedure including the power to summon and
    examine witnesses on oath, the power to order inspection
    of documents, to hear the parties after framing issues, to       F
    review his own order and even exercise the inherent
    jurisdiction of Courts mentioned in S.151 of the Code of
    Civil Procedure. In such a case there is no difficulty in
    holding that in adjudicating upon a dispute referred under
    S.48 of the Act, the Registrar is to all intents and purposes,
                                                                     G
    a Court discharging the same functions and duties in the
    ;:;ame manner as a Court of law is expected to do."

    However, it does not necessarily follow from that the
Registrar exercising such powers has to be necessarily a
                                                                     H
    20       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A   person with judicial/legal background. That was not even an
    issue in the aforesaid case.

       17. In so far as judgment in the case of Mukrigopalan is
  concerned, the Court therein discussed the power of the
B appellate authority constituted under Section 18 under Kerala
  Building Lease Rent Control Act. In the instant case, the
  appellate authority is the tribunal which is headed by a judicial
  person. The judgment in R.Gandhi (supra) again pertains to the
  National Company Law Tribunal and the law stated therein,
C emph'asizing the need for person with judicial background, is
  in the context of a tribunal. Same is the position in the matter
  of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Bar Association case (supra). In
  so far as Namit Sharma (supra) is concerned, much of what is
  stated therein is watered down in the decision dated
  September 3, 2013 rendered in the Review Petition (C) No.
D 2309 of 2012 titled Union of India v. R.Gandhi. The Court has
  gone to the extent of holding that CIC is not discharging judicial
  duties.


E       18. We would like to point out that such quasi judicial
  powers are given even to the Election Commission under the
  Representation of People Act, 1951 in a matter where it
  decides as to whether to register a political party or not. This
  was so made clear in the case of Indian National Congress
F (I) ~s. Institute of Social Welfare & Ors. 2002 (5) SCC 685.
  Notwithstanding that Election Commission under Section 29-
  A of the said Act is required to act judicially and the act of
  Commission, in that capacity, is quasi judicial, nobody has
  ventured to say that such functions be discharged only by a
G person with judicial/legal background.

     , 19. Having determined the question raised, we would like
    to emphasize the need for appointment of suitable persons not
    only as Registrar, Joint Registrar etc. but as Chairman and
    members of the tribunal as well. While discharging quasi-
H
    SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.                      21
                 [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
judicial functions Registrar, Joint Registrars etc. have to keep       A
in mind that they have to be independent in their functioning.
They are also expected to acquire necessary expertise to
effectively deal with the disputes coming before them. They are
supposed to be conscious of competing rights in order to
decide the case justly and fairly and to pass the orders which         B
are legally sustainable. In this behalf, we would like to refer to
judgment dated 3.9.2013 passed in the Review Petition (C)
No.2309/2012 (Namit Sharma case). In that case, one
unfortunate feature that was noted was that experience over the
years has shown that the orders passed by Information                  C
Commissions have, at times, gone beyond the provisions of
the Right to Information Act and that Information Commissions
have not been able to harmonise the conflicting interests
indicated in the preamble and other provisions of the Act. The
reasons for this experience about the functioning of the
                                                                       0
Information Commissions could be either that the persons who
do not answer the criteria mentioned in Sections 12(5) and
15(5) have been appointed as Chief lnforma,tion Commissioner
or that the persons appointed even when they answer the
aforesaid criteria, they do not have the required mind to
balance the interests indicated in the Act. It was therefore           E
insisted that experienced suitable persons should be appointed
who are able to perform their functions efficiently and effectively.
In this behalf certain directions were given and one of the
directions was that while making recommendation for
appointment of CIC and Information Commissioners the                   F
Selection Committee must mention against name of each
candidate recommended the facts to indicate his eminence in
public life (which is the requirement of the provision of that Act),
his knowledge and experience in the particular field and these
facts must be accessible to the citizens as part of their right to     G
information under that Act, after the appointment is made.

     20. Taking clue from the aforesaid directions, and having
gone through the similar dismal state of affairs expressed by
the petitioner in the instant petition about the functioning of the
                                                                       H
   22        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A cooperative societies, we direct that the State Government
  shall, keeping in mind the objective of the Act, the functions
  which the Registrar, Joint Registrar etc. are required to perform
  and commensurate with those, appointment of suitable persons
  shall be made. Likewise, having regard to the fact that the
s Chairman of the Tribunal is to be a judicial person, namely,
  Former Judge of the High Court or the District Judge, we are
  of the opinion that for appointment of the Chairman and the
  Members of the Tribunal, the respondent-State is duty bound
  to keep in mind and follow the mandate of the Constitution
c Bench judgment of this Court in R.Gandhi (supra). Thus, for
  appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Tribunal, the
  selection to these posts should preferably be made by the,
  Public Service Commission in consultation with the High Court.

      21. As a result, subject to the aforesaid directions, this
D Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

   Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                             SLP dismissed.