- (1.) THE detailed referring order has itself focussed the question involved herein, placed before us for resolving minimally we may notice. that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the Stake of Punjab, to conduct their business in a particular manner, in the wake of change of price of fertilizer filed by the Government of India under the Fertilizer Control Order 1957, (sic) and those directives being the subject matter of challenge, attracted one of the defences that the Registrar was authorised to issue such directives in exercise of his power under R. 45 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules 1963, which reads as under: "directives by Registrar for the successful conduct of the business: The Registrar may, from time to time, issue such directives as he considers necessary for the successful conduct of the business of a co-operative society or class of co-operative Societies. " It was maintained behalf of the petitioners that R. 45 had been struck down in Gobind Ram v. State of Punjab, 1972 Cur LJ 429: (AIR 1972 Punj 471), by 8. R. Tuli, 'j. , and thus it could not be adopted as a measure of defence by the respondent-Registrar, It was maintained on the other hand, that the rule laid down in Gobind Ram's case (supra) needed reconsideration. As is plain, the necessity of it was spelled out in the referring order.
(2.) IN Gobind Ram's case (supra) B. R. Tuli, J. , had taken the view that rule was not consistent with the power vested in the State Government under S. 85 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act) where under power to frame Rules had been conferred on the State Government. It seems that the provisions of sub-section (3) of S. 85 of the Act were not read before the Hon'b1e Judge in the right perspective. These may well be reproduced here: "every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before the State Legislature while it is in session for e total period of ten days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is laid or the session immediately following the Legislature agrees it making any modification in the rule or the Legislature agrees that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without pre-judice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule. "
(3.) UNDENIABLY; the rule in question was placed before the State Legislature. Rather, no data has been placed on the record to show that it was not so placed. It has thus to be assumed that it was so placed.;