- (1.) THESE cases came up for hearing before us in the Division Bench held at Camp Jodhpur on 17. 12. 1965. At the outset. , the Government Advocate drew the Courts attention to the fact that the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 had received the assent of the President on the 2nd day of September, 1965 and had already come into force. This Act repeals the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act No. 4 of 1953, and seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Co operative Societies in the State of Rajasthan. Under the new Act, the Government Advocate urged that a separate Tribunal had been constituted u/s 123 to hear revision u/s 125 of the Act. Further, u/s 147 which relates to the delegation of powers, the Government has not been empowered to delegate its powers under the Act to any other person or authority as in the old Act. Thus, in view of the new enactment the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to hear the revision petitions under the Co-operative Societies Act, pending as well as those which may come up in future. Shri M. C. Kalla, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, replied by saying that the Board was exercising the Government's executive powers to hear the revisions. Under the new Act of 1965, the Government still retains those powers. There is no specific provision that the delegated powers of the Board should be abolished and the cases be transferred to the new Tribunal. As such, the Board would continue to hear revisions in which the lis had started earlier, although the new cases may have to be transferred to new forum.
(2.) WE have considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and have perused the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The point for determination before us is whether the Board would continue to exercise the delegated powers of the Government under the Old Act of 1953 or it should transfer such cases immediately and cease to deal with them. Before we decide this point, it is necessary to examine what powers the Board of Revenue was exercising under the old Act. In the Act of 1953, Sec. 76 confers concurrent power on the State Government and the Registrar to call for proceedings of the subordinate Officers for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decisions or order passed and examine the regularity of the proceedings of such officers. Under the old Act this power was to be exercised by the Government. but u/s. 89 of the same Act, the State Government was authorised to delegate all or any of its powers under that Act. It was in exercise of this power of the Government that the State Government had delegated its powers u/s. 76 to be exercised by the Board. Since then, the Board has been exercising these extra ordinary powers of revision in cases arising under the Co operative Societies Act, 1953. Now, under the Act, a Tribunal has been constituted by the legislature u/s. 123 of the Act. This tribunal will exercise appellate powers over certain orders passed by the Registrar and the subordinate Officers and will exercise the powers of revision and review u/ss. 125 and 126 respectively of the same Act. Sec. 128 of the new Act still empowers the State Government and the Registrar to examine the record of any enquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate Officer except those referred to in sec. 125 to test the legality or propriety or regularity and to pass such order as it thinks fit. Sec. 125 which empowers the Tribunal to hear revisions, authorises it to call for records in the exercise of their revisionary powers in which an appeal lies. This is an extra-ordinary and overlapping power which has been conferred on the Tribunal by the new Act. Sec. 147 of the new Act of 1965 deals with the delegation of powers by the Government. This power of the Government is now restricted to the delegation of power of the Registrar to any apex or Central Society or to any Officer of such Society. It does not empower the Government to delegate its own power. Thus, so far as the schemes of the two Acts are concerned, the provisions with regard to the delegation of the powers of the Government are inconsistent. The former Act empowered the Government to delegate its own powers. The latter Act does not empower the Government to delegate its own powers. The power of revision which this Board was exercising on behalf of the State was under the scheme of the old Act which authorised such delegation. The new Act does not so expressly authorise this delegation. Sec. 153 of the new Act which relates to repeal and savings has repealed the old Act of 1953. The same section saves everything done and action taken, under the old Act, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act. All actions taken, appointments made etc. under the old Act, as the sec. provides, shall continue in force unless and until superseded by anything done or action taken under this Act. The same section further provides in sub-sec. 3 that all proceedings pending immediately before such commencement of the Act in the Office of the Registrar, Arbitrator etc. shall stand transferred where necessary to the corresponding Officer or authority under the new Act. The question, therefore, is whether the revision petitions pending before the Board of Revenue should be transferred in case where appeal lies to the Tribunal or in case where no appeal lies to the State Government or to the Registrar. The provisions of sec. 27 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 may also be considered here with advantage. Sec. 27 of the General Clauses Act runs as follows - "sec. 27. Continuation of orders, etc. issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted : Where any enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modifications, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or bye-law made or issued and anything duly done or action taken under the repealed enactment shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions so re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued and one or taken under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or bye-law made or issued or any thing done or action taken under the provisions so re-enacted. " In other words, when any enactment is repealed or re-enacted all actions taken appointments made and powers conferred etc. should continue in force unless they are superseded by fresh orders under the new enactment so long as the exercise of such power or appointment made is not inconsistent with the new provisions. The question before us is whether the exercise of the delegated powers of the State Government u/s 76 read with sec. 89 of the old Act could still be continued to be exercised by the Board until they are superseded by the new Act It will also have to be examined whether the exercise of these powers of the State Govt. by the Board are in any way inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act. As already observed, the State Government still retains the special powers in the nature of revision over and above the powers of revision exercised by the Tribunal constituted under the Act and to that extent unless and until under the new enactment the Government issues a notification withdrawing these powers from the Board it should normally continue to function. But there is an apparent inconsistency in the schemes of the old and the new enactments with regard to the power of delegation of its own powers by the State Government. The new Act does not authorise the State Government to delegate its own powers, but only authorises the State Government to delegate the power of the Registrar. Thus, the power of the State Government under the new Scheme, by express provision and necessary intendment, cannot be delegated and to that extent the provisions of the old Act with regard to the delegation by the State Government of its power to any authority is inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act. It, therefore follows that after the repeal of the old Act and re-enact-ment of the new Act of 1965, the Board cannot be considered to have been legally empowered to exercise the delegated function of the State Government, as the power of the State Government to delegate its own function has ceased to exist. Therefore, the jurisdiction which the Board of Revenue exercised on behalf of the State Government in the nature of special revision is extinguished and this Board is precluded from exercising these powers with the result that the Board has no option but to transfer all such pending cases to the State Government in which no appeal lies as well as those cases in which appeal lies to the Tribunal and if the Tribunal is not yet constituted to the State Government for making such arrangements as it deems fit, for the disposal of these applications. We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection raised by the Government Advocate and direct that these two cases along with all other cases relating to Co-operative Societies Act, whether pending by way of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, may now be transferred to the State Government for making arrangements for the disposal of these cases. . ;