Kalaskarwadi Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra

(vi) State of U.P. Vs. Hirendrapal Singh & Ors.10,

(vii) Gajapati Narayan Deo Vs. State of Orissa11,

(viii)P. V. George & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.12 ” Submissions of Respondent-State:-

9. Respondent-State represented by Mr. Walimbe, Additional Government Pleader vehemently opposed the petition. Respondent- State submitted that the impugned corrigendum is made applicable prospectively and not retrospectively and all the pending proposals for registration of societies will be examined on the basis of norms laid down by the Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 and impugned corrigendum thereto dated 14th February 2017. Respondent-

14 of 41 State further submitted that even the new society has to comply with norm No.2 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 which provides for quantum of business done in the preceding year by the proposed society as one of the condition for being eligible for registration. Respondent-State further submitted that the corrigendum is issued to removed contradiction between norm Nos.[1] and 3 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 and, therefore, Respondent-State is justified in clarifying the inconsistency/ contradiction by way of the present corrigendum dated 14th

2017. In the Affidavit-in-reply of Dr. Sudin Gaikwad affirmed on 15th April 2017 and filed in Writ Petition No.3712 of 2017, Respondent-State prayed for discontinuance of the interim relief granted by this Court on 6th April 2017, which restrained Respondent-State and its officers to process any application for registration based on the impugned corrigendum. With regard to the Rules of Business, Respondent-State submitted that there is no financial implication arising out of the corrigendum and, therefore, the Minister In-charge of Co-operative Department had the authority to take such policy decision without referring to the Council of Ministers. Respondent-State further, by way of Affidavit of one Mr. Santosh Patil affirmed on 7th August 2024 and filed in Writ Petition No.13990 of 2023 contended that the approval of Council of Ministers for such decision is not required on a reading of 15 of 41 Rule 4 of the Rules of Business read with Schedule-I and Serial No.23 which deals with Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department. Respondent-State relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ganeshrao Deshmukh Vs. Dev Vyankatesh Singh13, in support of this submission. The Respondent-State also in the said affidavit referred to the suggestions received from General Administration Department, which department had suggested Respondents to issue “addendum” instead of “corrigendum” and based on this suggestion, Respondent- State in the said affidavit have stated that they will be issuing such “addendum” instead of “corrigendum”. Respondent-State also filed letter dated 15th April 2024 issued by Sangram Dubal, Officer from Cooperation Department and addressed to Additional Government Pleader on the basis of which the aforesaid submissions were made. Respondent-State, therefore, submitted that the corrigendum has been correctly issued by following due process of law and to clarify the Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 and, therefore, all the three petitions should be dismissed.

10. We have heard learned counsel for Petitioners and the Respondents and with their assistance we have perused the documents which were brought to our notice. We have also perused the written submissions filed by Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4943 of 2017 and

16 of 41 Respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.13990 of 2023. By an order dated 7th September 2023, Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13999 of 2023 was granted leave to amend to join proposed Cooperative Societies who had filed intervention application being Civil Application Nos.957 of 2017, 958 of 2017 and 959 of 2017. Pursuant to this order, petition was amended and Proposed Cooperative Societies were added as party Respondent Nos.[5] to 8. There is an office note dated 27th October 2023, wherein it is stated that Affidavit of service is filed on 29th September 2023 and that notice sent to Respondent Nos.[5] to 8 (the Proposed Cooperative Societies) through RPAD with tracking report is filed. However, it appears that Respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 inspite of the service have chosen not to appear when this matter was taken up for hearing. Analysis and conclusion:-

11. Following issues arises for our consideration:

(i) Issue No.1:- Whether the impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 seeking to amend Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 can at all be considered as “Corrigendum”.

(ii) Issue No.2:- Whether Respondent-State has followed the procedure prescribed as per Article 166 of the Constitution of India read with the Maharashtra Rules of Business, 1975 for issuing the impugned corrigendum. 17 of 41

(iii) Issue No.3:- Whether the impugned corrigendum is invalid for any other reasons ?

(iv) Issue No.4:- If answer to Issue No.2 is in affirmative then whether the impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 is prospective or retrospective.

(v) Issue No.5:- If the impugned corrigendum is held to be unconstitutional then what would be the consequences / fall out of decisions taken during the period 14th February 2017 till the date of present judgment ? “Issue No.1:- Whether the impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 seeking to amend Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 can at all be considered as Corrigendum.”

12. Before we proceed to adjudicate upon Issue No.1, it would be worthwhile to narrate the background facts leading to the impugned corrigendum.

13. Respondent-State is entrusted with regulating the registrations of PACCS. On 7th February 2001, Respondent-State issued a Government Resolution for regulating the registration of PACCS and Condition No.3 of the said Government Resolution read as under:- “In a village as far as possible there should be only one Society. Even if there is a demand for another Society, there should be 18 of 41 business of 50 lakhs for each Society. In a village even if there are more than two Societies, the Gat Secretary, however, should be only one”

14. The aforesaid Government Resolution dated 7th February 2001 contemplated that as far as possible, there should be only one society in revenue village.

15. The Government of India on 5th August 2004 constituted a committee headed by renowned economist Shri. A. Vaidyanathan for suggesting action plan for reviving Rural Cooperative Credit Institutions. The said Committee gave a detail report on 4th 2005 to the Government of India dealing with all the issues relating to Rural Cooperative Credit Institutions and it was also suggested that the report of this Committee be implemented by States. In the backdrop of this report and development, Respondent-State issued Government Resolution dated 3rd December 2011 by which a decision to stop new registration of PACCS was taken till a policy decision is taken in respect of the registration of new PACCS, to divide and amalgamate the existing PACCS which are financially not viable or sound, cancellation of PACCS which are required to be liquidated, etc. was under consideration of the Respondent-State. 19 of 41

16. On 23rd September 2013, Respondent-State after deliberation and considering various recommendations from various stakeholders issued a Government Resolution laying down new conditions/ parameters for the registration of new PACCS. It is important to reproduce relevant conditions which reads thus:- “1) There should be only one Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society in one Revenue Village.

2) Estimated loan disbursal of the proposed Primary Agricultural Credit Co- operative Society should be as follows in the financial year preceding the year in which application is made for registration of the Society in terms of the crop loan rate fixed by the District Central Co-operative Bank:- Western Maharashtra and North Maharashtra (Khandesh) -Rs.1.[5] Crore. Konkan, Marathawada and Vidarbha -Rs.1.0 Crore. Villages in the tribal areas of the State -Rs. 50 Lacs 3) In villages, where there is no independent existing Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, when the new Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society is proposed to be registered there, the villagers who are members of the existing Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society in the neighbouring village, such Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society is bound to comply with the condition laid down in Point No. 2 above in respect of credit supply stated hereinabove. If due to the establishment of a new Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society in an independent revenue village, the existing Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society is in danger of the facing the Negative Net Worth, or their CRAR is likely to fall below 4%, then in such new revenue village, there be would be no registration of the new Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society.

4) ….

5) ….

6) Following would be the policy in the State in respect of Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies which are currently functioning but which are financially unsound and whose Negative Net Worth and CRAR is less than 4%,:a) The Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies which 20 of 41 can be amalgamated with the nearest Societies, such Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies may be amalgamated with the nearest Societies. b) Those Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies which are capable of being made financially sound, such Societies shall make their Financial Empowerment Action Plan for the next three years i.e (Year 2014-15 to 2016-17) and submit it to the concerned Original Marathi version of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 is as under:jkT;kr uohu izkFkfed d`”kh ir iqjoBk lgdkjh laLFkk uksan.kh dj.ks o dk;Zjr laLFkkps l{kehdj.k dj.ksckcregkjk”V ‘kklu lgdkj] i.ku o oL=ks?kksx foHkkx ‘kklu ‘kq/nhiz=d dz- llsok 911@iz-dz- 1047@2 l ea=ky;¼foLrkj½ eqacbZ& 400032 fnukad&23 lIVsacj] 2013 okpk& 1- ‘kklu fu.kZ; dzekad- llsok&102000@iz-dz- 570@2&l] fn- 23-Qsczqokjh]2001 2- lgdkj vk;qDr o fuca/kd] lgdkjh laLFkk];kaps ifji=d dz- vFkZ@vjk@fodkl@ ukiwi@oSlferh&07 fn- 5@3@2017- 3- ‘kklu fu.kZ; dzekadk lhlhvkj&1411@iz-dz- 1028@2&l] fn- 3 fMlsacj] 2011- 4- lgdkj vk;qDr o fuca/kd] lgdkjh laLFkk iq.ks;kaps i= fn- 6@2@2013izLrkouk& ‘kklu fu.kZ;& jkT;kr uO;kus izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjoBk laaLFkkaph ukasn.kh dj.;klkBh [kkyhyizek.ks lq/kkfjr fud”k fuf’pr dj.;kr;sr vkgs- 1½,dk eglqyh xkokr,dp izkFkfed lgdkjh laLFkk vlkoh- 2½ ukaasn.khlkBh izLrko nk[ky >kysY;k yxriqohZP;k vkfFkZd o”kkZrhy ftYgk e/;oRkhZ lgdkjh cWdkauh fuf’pr dsysY;k ihd dtZ njkuqlkj fu;ksftr izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjoBk lgdkjh laLFkspk laHkkO; d`f”k o d`f”kiqjd iriqjoBk [kkyhyizek.ks vko’;d vkgsif’pe egkjk”Vª o mRrj egkjk”Vª ¼[kkuns’klg½&&&&&&:i;s 1-5 dksVh dksd.k] o ejkBokMk o fonHkZ &&&&&&&&:i;s 1-0 dksVh jkT;krhy vkfnoklh Hkkxkrhy xkos &&&&&&&&&&&:i;s 50 yk[k 3½ T;k Lora= eglqyh xkokr l/;k Loar= d`”kh iriqjoBk lgdkjh laLFkk vfLrRokr ukgh v’kk xkoke;s uO;kus izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjoBk laLFksph uksan.kh djrkuk v’kk xkokrhy lHkkln l/;k ‘kstkjP;k T;k xkokrhy izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjoBk lgdkjh laLFks’kh layXu vkgsr v’kk laLFksus ns[khy ojhy eqnk dz-2 e/;s ueqn dsY;kizek.ks iriqjoB;kaps fud”k iw.kZ dj.ks ca/kudkjd jkghy- rlsp Loar= eglqyh xkokr uohu izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjoBk lgdkjh laLFkk Lfkkiu dsY;keqGs vfLrRokr vlysY;k laLFksps uDr ewY; m.ks gksr vlsy fdaok vfLrRokr vlysY;k laLFksP;k tks[khe laiRrhps HkkaMoyk’kh izek.k ¼CRAR½ 4% is{kk fdaok deh gksr vlsy rj ufou eglqyh xkokr uO;kus izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjoBk lgdkjh laLFkk ukasn.kh djrk;s.kkj ukgh- 21 of 41 4½ uO;kus ukasn.kh gks.kkj;k izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjOkBk lgdkjh laLFksPkh lHkkln la[;k ¼[kkrsnkj lHkkln½ fdeku 75,o<h vlkoh- 5½ fu;ksftr izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjoBk lgdkjh laLFksP;k izLrkokph Nkuuh dj.;klkBh o izLrkokph vkfFkZd l{kerk rikl.;klkBh [kkyhyizek.ks lferh jkghy%& 1- vIIkj vk;qDr o fo’ks”k fuca/kd] lgdkjh laLFkk] egkjk”V jkT;] iq.ks v/;{k 2- lacaf/kr ftyg;kps ftYgk mifuca/kd] lgdkjh laLFkk lnL; 3- lacaf/kr ftYgk fo’ks”k ys[kkifj{kd] lgdkjh laLFkk lnL; 4- Lkacaf/kr rkyqD;kps mi@lgk;d fuca/kd] lgdkjh laLFkk lnL; 5- mi fuca/kd] lgdkjh laLFkk ¼vFkZ½ eq[;ky;] iq.ks lnL; 6½ jkT;kr l/;k dk;Zjr vlysY;k ijarq vFkZ{ke ulysY;k T;k laLFksps uDr ewY; m.ks vkgs ¼Negative Net worth½ o tks[khe laiRrhps HkkaMoyk’kh izek.k ¼CRAR½4% is{kk deh vkgs v’kk izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjoBk lgdkjh laLFkkackcr [kkyhyizek.ks /kksj.k jkfgy%& v½ T;k izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjoBk lgdkjh laLFkkaps uthdP;k laLFksr foyhuhdj.k dj.ks ‘kD; vkgs v’kk izkFkfed d`”kh iriqjoBk lgdkjh laLFkkaps uthdP;k laLFksr foyhuhdj.k dj.;kr;kosc½ T;k laLFkkaps vkfFkZd l{kehdj.k ‘kD; vkgs v’kk laLFkkauh iq<hy rhu o”kkZPkk ¼lu 2014&15 rs lu 2016&17½ vkfFkZd l{kehdj.kkpk d`rh dk;Zdze r;kj d:u lacaf/kr fuca/kdkuk fnukad 31@3@2014 i;Zr lknj djkok-

17. Respondent-State, therefore, made a conscious departure from the language used in Condition No.1 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 as compared to the language used in Condition No.3 of Government Resolution dated 7th February 2001 which corresponds to Condition No.1 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013. Condition No.3 of the Government Resolution dated 7th February 2001 provided that in a revenue village “as far as possible”, there should be only one society, whereas Condition No.1 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 did not contain the said phrase but on the contrary specifically provided that “only one” society is to be registered in one revenue village. The change in the policy from “as far as possible” to “only one” was taken in the backdrop of the situation arising in the State of Maharashtra, where more than 22 of 41 5,000 PACCS were found to be financially unviable.

18. Condition No.1 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013, which provided that there should be only one Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society in one revenue village came up for consideration before this Court in Vijay Kusekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No.1164 of 2017 and was held to be mandatory. This Court rejecting the contention of State that Condition No.1 of 2013 Government Resolution is directory observed that Respondents are not correct in contending that Condition No.3 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 and Condition No.1 are to be read disjunctive. The relevant observations of the said judgment in Writ Petition No.1164 of 2017 are reproduced herein:- “19 Condition No.1 of the said GR dated 23/09/2013 would have to be read to mean that there could be only one Society or PACCS in one revenue village and therefore the said condition would have to be held to be mandatory.

20 In so far as the Respondents are concerned, it was the submission of the learned counsel that the second part of Condition No.3 of the said GR dated 23/09/2013 is indicative of the fact that the said Condition No.1 is directory. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents that in terms of the second part of the said Condition No.3 what is required to be seen whilst registering the second PACCS is its financial viability and if the second PACCS satisfies the requirements stipulated in the second part of Condition No.3, then it could be registered. In my view, the said submission of the Respondents is based on a misreading of the said Condition No.3. The Respondents want to read the two parts of the said Condition No.3 disjunctively. In fact the said Condition No.3 has to be read as a whole. The second part of the said Condition No.3 flows from the first part, whereas the first part of the Condition No.3 provides for the existing PACCS in the neighbouring village to comply with Condition No.3 in the matter of estimated loan disbursal. The second part provides that if on the registration of a PACCS 23 of 41 in an independent revenue village, the existing PACCS in the neighbouring village is in danger of facing negative network or the CRAR is likely to fall below 4%, then in such new revenue village, such new PACCS should not be registered. If the second part is read disjunctively from the first part, as urged by the learned counsel for the Respondents, it would lead to an anomalous situation wherein the second Society can be registered in spite of the stipulations or conditions provided in the said GR dated 23/09/2013 being not satisfied or met.

21 In fact as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel Shri DJ Khambatta appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that the said Condition No.3 in so far as it ensures financial viability even of a PACCS in the neighbouring village, is indicative of the fact that Condition No.1 has to be construed strictly in respect of registering another PACCS in the same revenue village, and therefore no second Society can be registered in the same revenue village.

22 The Respondents rely on the Government Corrigendum dated 14/02/2017 to contend that the said Corrigendum clarifies the position in so far as the registration of the second Society in the same revenue village is concerned. In my view, the said Corrigendum dated 14/02/2017 does not further the case of the Respondents in so far as the registration of a second Society or PACCS in the same revenue village is concerned. The said Corrigendum has been issued purportedly on the ground that there was a confusion in the authorities in so far as Condition Nos.[1] and 3 of the said GR dated 23/09/2013 is concerned, and it is to remove the said confusion that the said Corrigendum has been issued. By the said Corrigendum dated 14/02/2017 what has been done is substituting Condition No.1 by Clause (1) of the said Corrigendum and adding Clauses 1A and 1B to the said GR dated 23/09/2013. It is required to be noted that the said Corrigendum has been issued during the pendency of the above Writ Petition and the companion Writ Petitions. The impugned order is therefore not passed on the basis of the said Corrigendum. By substituting Condition No.1 of the said GR dated 23/09/2013 by Clause (1) of the Corrigendum and adding Clauses 1A and 1B, a new condition has been incorporated in the said GR dated 23/09/2013. Hence the Corrigendum is not by way of a clarification but it substitutes the original Condition No.1 in the said GR dated 23/09/2013 by a new condition. Implicit in the fact of issuing the said Corrigendum is the fact that the State Government was also interpreting Condition No.1 of the said GR dated 23/09/2013 to be a mandatory condition, and it is therefore to remove the impediment in registering the second PACCS, that the State Government has thought it fit to substitute the said Condition No.1 by a new condition which is Clause (1) of the said Corrigendum. Since the Corrigendum substantially amends the GR dated 23/09/2013, the same would only have a prospective effect and cannot be pressed into service to justify the impugned order which directs the registration of a second PACCS. The Corrigendum has to be looked at from one more perspective. The background to the issuance of the said GR dated 23/09/2013 was the situation as prevailing on 30/03/2013 when the State Government found that out of 21,318 PACCS, 5498 PACCS were ineligible to get any 24 of 41 financial help or assistance as per the Vaidyanathan Committee's recommendations. Hence the State Government was very much concerned as regards the financial viability of a large number of PACCS in the State. It is in the said background that the policy as contained in the said GR dated 23/09/2013 was formulated. If Condition No.1 is said to be clarified by clause (1) of the Corrigendum, it would lead to an incongruous situation wherein in spite of the State Government coming to a conclusion that some remedial measures are required to be taken to maintain the financial health of the PACCS which it has done so by the GR dated 23/09/2013, but contrary thereto the Corrigendum would have the effect of the said GR providing for the registration of a second PACCS. The same would therefore be a contradiction of sorts. This Court whilst adjudicating the above Writ Petition has not gone into the legality or validity of the said Corrigendum dated 14/02/2017, however has tested the case of the Respondents based on the said Corrigendum. Hence the legality and validity of the Corrigendum is kept open for being urged in appropriate proceedings, and the contentions of the parties in that regard are also kept open.”

19. In our view, the changes sought to be made by impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated to fall within the ambit and scope of “corrigendum”. Corrigendum is issued for rectifying some mistakes or errors which are obvious and which have crept in the main document. If one examines the changes sought to be made by the impugned corrigendum and in the light of what has been held by this Court in Writ petition No.1164 of 2017 which is reproduced above, in our view, there is substitution of Condition No.1 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 with a totally new condition and eligibility by the impugned corrigendum. When a new condition/eligibility is sought to be replaced by an old condition/eligibility, one cannot say that such a change would fall within the ambit and scope of “corrigendum” to clarify the errors crept in the main document which in the instant case 25 of 41 is Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013.

20. The basis of issuing the impugned corrigendum is representation received from Cooperative Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide letter dated 20th September 2016, wherein these authorities have expressed their view that there is inconsistency in Condition Nos.[1] and 3 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 and these authorities sought guidance, whether newly proposed society can be registered in the same revenue village, where PACCS is already existing if the proposed society complies with the other conditions. Respondent-State on the basis of such views expressed came to the conclusion that there is inconsistency between Condition Nos.[1] and 3 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 and sought to issue the impugned corrigendum by which they not only replaced the phrase “only one” with the phrase “as far as possible” but also added new conditions being the proposed PACCS should deposit Rs.5,00,000/- and the proposed PACCS should commence alteast one of its business within a period of one year from the date of its registration. In our view, prescribing new eligibility/conditions by way of impugned communication which is styled as “corrigendum” cannot be treated to mean that Respondent-State is proposing to rectify the error crept in the Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013. 26 of 41

21. In our view, a corrigendum can be issued only to correct a typographical error or omission therein. The dictionary meaning of the word “corrigendum” means things have to be corrected. It means there must be an error and there is a necessity to amend and rectify it. Under the garb of corrigendum, a Government Resolution cannot be altered and/or changed but that is what appears to have been done in the instant case. In order to alter or modify a Government Resolution the procedure adopted in issuing of the original Government Resolution has to be gone through. A modification is an alteration or change which may characterise in quantitative change as either increase or decrease. In the instant case, by virtue of replacement of clause (1) of 2013 Government Resolution by the corrigendum, what is sought to be done is to introduce a new parameters or criteria for prescribing the eligibility for registration of new PACCS. The corrigendum also departs from having “only one”

PACCS to “as far as possible” to have one PACCS, which means by corrigendum more than one PACCS is sought to be permitted subject to fulfillment of the new conditions / parameters sought to be introduced by way of the impugned corrigendum. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. J. K. Udaipur Udyog Limited14 observed that the use of word “corrigendum” indicates the intention of correction and to rectify that what the State thought has been erroneously done. In the instant case as observed by us above, certainly

27 of 41 replacement of condition (1) by way of impugned corrigendum in the Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 cannot be considered as correction of any error, but it is a substantive change in the policy conditions which is sought to be introduced under the garb of corrigendum. Therefore, in our view, the changes sought to be introduced in the alleged corrigendum cannot be upheld by way of introduction of a corrigendum to the Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 and, therefore, cannot be considered as “corrigendum”. “Issue No.2:- Whether Respondent-State has followed the procedure prescribed as per Article 166 of the Constitution of India read with the Maharashtra Rules of Business, 1975 for issuing the impugned corrigendum.”

22. We now propose to deliberate Issue No.2 as to whether the prescribed procedure has been followed for issuing the impugned corrigendum.

23. Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India provides that the Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business insofar as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution is required to act in his discretion.

24. Pursuant to above Article 166, on 26th June 1975 the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business (“Rules of Business”) came 28 of 41 to be framed by the Governor of Maharashtra. Rule 4 of the said Rules of Business prescribes that the business of the Government shall be transacted in the Departments specified in the First Schedule and shall be classified and distributed between those departments as laid done therein. Entry 23 of the First Schedule to the said Rules of Business specifies “Cooperation and Textile Department”. First Schedule describes various departments of the Government who shall transact the business. For example, Home Department, Finance Department, Planning Department etc. In our view, Rule 4 of the Rules of Business only specifies the compartmentalisation of various business of the Government into various departments and nothing further. Therefore, contention of Respondent-State justifying the issue of corrigendum by Minister of Co-operation by placing reliance on Rule 4 read with First Schedule is to be rejected. Rule 4 does not empower any Ministry to issue the corrigendum with respect to the department of which the Minister is the head. Therefore, the procedure adopted by Respondent- State to issue the corrigendum by the Ministry of Cooperation by placing reliance on Rule 4 is misconceived.

25. Rule 9 of the Rules of Business prescribes that all cases referred to in the Second Schedule shall be brought before the Council either by the Governor or the Chief Minister or the Minister-in-charge with the consent of the Chief Minister. Second Schedule to the Rules of 29 of 41 Business provides for various proposals which are required to be brought before Council of Minster. Entry 19 of the Second Schedule refers to “proposals involving any important change of policy or practice.” We have already observed above, that what is sought to be introduced by way of corrigendum is prescribing new eligibility criteria for registration of PACCS. We have already observed that the changes sought to be made are substantial changes to the Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013. Therefore, in our view, the impugned corrigendum could not have been issued without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of Rules of Business. Though we have already held that in any case such changes cannot be made by way of corrigendum Respondent-State in their affidavit have admitted that the changes sought to be made by way of impugned corrigendum is not required to be referred to the Council of Minster, which means that this issue was never referred to the Council of Minister. In our view as observed hereinabove, the changes sought to be made by way of impugned corrigendum was required to be brought before the Council of Ministers and having not done that clearly there is breach of Rule 9 which is mandatory. Therefore, Petitioners are justified in contending that the impugned corrigendum having been introduced without following the procedure prescribed by Rule 9 of Rules of Business, same is required to be quashed and set aside. 30 of 41

26. The Petitioners are justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of MRF Limited (supra), wherein it is held that the decision of the State Government have to be in conformity with the mandate of Articles 154 and 166 Constitution of India as also the Rules framed thereunder as otherwise such decisions would not be a Government decision and will be a nullity. The Supreme Court further observed that if the Council of Ministers or the Chief Minister has not been a party to a decision taken by individual Minister, that decision cannot be the decision of the State Government and it would be non-est and ab-initio void. The Supreme Court further observed that Rules of Business framed under the provisions of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India are mandatory and must be strictly adhered. Any decision by the Government in breach of these Rules will be a nullity in the eye of law. In the instant case before us admittedly Rule 9 of the Rules of Business has been violated and, therefore, the impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 is required to be set aside following ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of MRF Limited (supra).

27. Respondent-State in its affidavit dated 7th August 2024 has admitted that General Administration Department have suggested issuance of “addendum” instead of “corrigendum” and the Respondent- State will be issuing such an addendum. By this, Respondent-State 31 of 41 have admitted that the changes sought to be made were wrongly sought to be introduced by way of corrigendum. Therefore, even on this admission, the impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 is required to be set aside.

28. The reliance placed by Respondent-State in the case of Ganeshrao Deshmukh (supra) is misconceived. Respondent-State have relied on the observation “it is not disputed that under the Rules of Business framed under the Constitution of India, the State Government means in practice the Minister-in-charge of the department concerned” in support of its impugned action. In our view, this decision is not applicable since it was rendered on 27th July 1971 which is prior to the 1975 Rules of Business which we are concerned. Therefore, the 1975 Rules of Business were not for consideration before the High Court in the said decision. Furthermore, it was on the basis of undisputed position therein that the said issue came to be rendered which is not the case before us. Therefore, on facts and in law, the decision relied upon by Respondent-State in the case of Ganeshrao Deshmukh (supra) is not applicable to the instant case.

29. Respondent-State has sought to justify the corrigendum by stating that it was to remove contradiction in Condition Nos.[1] and 3 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013. In our view, the 32 of 41 whole basis of there being any contradiction in Condition Nos.[1] and 3 of the Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 is itself misconceived. Condition No.1 of 2013 Government Resolution expressly states that there should be a one PACCS within a single revenue village, whereas Condition No.3 dealt with a situation where by virtue of registration of a PACCS in a revenue village where there is noneexisting, the effect of the said registration on PACCS of the neighbouring village has to be considered. Therefore, Condition Nos.[1] and 3 both operate in different areas, Condition No.3 is to judge the effect of a neighbouring PACCS when a new PACCS is sought to be registered in a village where none-exists. Therefore, the whole basis of there being any inconsistency in Condition Nos.[1] and 3 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 is fallacious and consequently the corrigendum issued dated 14th February 2017 on such erroneous basis is required to be quashed and set aside. Issue No.3:- Whether the impugned corrigendum is invalid for any other reasons ?

30. It is also important to note that the impugned corrigendum results in creation of an inconsistent position. Respondent-State in their affidavit have submitted that Condition No.2 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 has to be complied with by the new PACCS. Condition No.2 provides for quantum of business done in the 33 of 41 immediately preceding financial year by PACCS of the amount specified therein. In the impugned corrigendum, a condition is prescribed that the new PACCS is required to commence atleast one of its business within a period of one year from the date of its registration. If that be so, then we fail to understand how Condition No.2 of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 prescribing quantum of business to be done in preceding year can be satisfied by a new PACCS as per the impugned corrigendum. Therefore, even on this count, the impugned corrigendum seems to have been issued without considering these relevant aspects and is required to be quashed and set aside.

31. One more reason for quashing the impugned corrigendum is that on 11th January 2017, the State Election Commission announced election dates for Zilla Parishad and Panchayat. The election programme was scheduled from 1st February 2017 and on 28th February 2017, the result of election would have to be announced. During this period, i.e., from 11th January 2017 till announcement of result, i.e., 28th 2017, Model Code of Conduct was effective and as per the guidelines laid down by the Election Commission of India for enforcement of Model Code of Conduct, it was imperative on the part of the Ministry incharge not to have issued such corrigendum which according to us was an important and substantive policy decision which was sought to be enforced by the impugned corrigendum. Looking at the spirit of Model 34 of 41 Code of Conduct, the Ministry in-charge could not have taken an important policy decision moreso in letter and spirit of such Model Code of Conduct and even on this count, in our view, the impugned corrigendum is required to be quashed and set aside. Issue No.4:- If answer to Issue No.2 is in affirmative then what would be whether the impugned corrigendum dated 14th 2017 is prospective or retrospective.

32. Since we are of the opinion that the impugned corrigendum is required to be set aside, Issue No.4 on whether the corrigendum is prospective or retrospective is not required to be adjudicated even though Respondent-State in their affidavit have accepted that same is prospective and this Court in Writ Petition No.1164 of 2017 have also held same to be prospective. Issue No.5:- If the impugned corrigendum is held to be unconstitutional then what would be the consequences / fall out of decisions taken during the period 14th February 2017 till the date of present judgment ?

33. Now we come to the fall out of our decision above in the light of the contention raised by Respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.13990 of 2023. In this context it is relevant to re-produce orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the three petitions which are subject matter before us. 35 of 41

34. On 6th April 2017, this Court in Writ Petition No.3712 of 2017 (Coram: Shantanu S. Kemkar and B. P. Colabawalla, JJ.) granted interim order in terms of prayer clause (d) and the said interim order continued from time to time. Prayer clause (d) reads as under:- “(d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 be directed not to consider any application or grant registration of any new Society on the basis of said impugned Corrigendum No.SS.911/CN1047/2S dated 14th February 2017, being Exhibit “G” to this Writ Petition.” The effect of the above interim order was Respondent-State, the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar for Co-operative Societies, the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies and the any application or grant registration to any new Society on the basis of impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017.

35. On 3rd May 2017, this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4943 of 2017 and 3712 of 2017 (Coram: Shantanu S. Kemkar and A. M. Badar, JJ.) modified the interim order by observing that the process of registration of the new Primary Cooperative Society may go on however, no final decision regarding registration shall be taken by the competent authority till the next date of hearing. The said order also continued from time to time. 36 of 41

36. On 8th December 2020, this Court (Coram: S. J. Kathawalla and Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ.) in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.94596 of 2020 passed following order:-

37. We have held the impugned corrigendum dated 14th 2017 as unconstitutional. However, during interregnum, the Respondent-State and its authorities have granted registrations to PACCS on the basis of the impugned corrigendum and on the basis of 37 of 41 the order dated 8th December 2020 passed in Writ Petition (St.) No.94596 of 2020 wherein it was observed by Co-ordinate Bench that the restraint order dated 3rd May 2017 passed in Writ Petition No.4943 of 2017 is not a blanket order restraining the Respondents not to take final decision regarding registration of any society but the restrained order passed is limited to the parties to the Writ Petition No.4943 of

2017.

38. The natural corollary of our holding the impugned corrigendum as unconstitutional would be that all PACCS that had made the applications for registration on the basis of the impugned corrigendum and the Respondent-State and its authorities have granted the registrations on that basis would have to be held as non-est and registrations would have to be cancelled. However, during the period 14th February 2017 till today, the fact remains that the registrations have been granted on the basis of the impugned corrigendum and such PACCS have started conducting the business of receiving deposits and lending in respective villages. If on the basis of this order, the registrations of such PACCS have to be cancelled then the multiplier economic consequences would be disastrous. We say so because over a period of 7 years from 2017 till 2024, these PACCS have conducted their activities on the basis of registrations granted by relying upon the impugned corrigendum and order dated 8th December 2020. There 38 of 41 would be severe economic crisis if these PACCS are now required to be wound up or closed down. Many depositors would lose their money leading to economic crisis of already fragile rural cooperative institutions. The ill-effects of such cancellation of registrations would be far-reaching then one can think of to the extent that it may also lead to deaths of various people. As a Writ Court, we have to keep in mind the equity jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court, when faced with such type of situation, has to balance the competing rights. The Court should make an attempt to ensure that atleast future economic crisis if possible, can be avoided as a consequence of an illegal act. Therefore, keeping in mind the balance between the illegal acts and the consequences of economic crisis ensuing in future on account of no fault of PACCS, we are of the view that registrations granted on the basis of the impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 and on the basis of the order dated 8th December 2020 passed in Writ Petition (St.) No.94596 of 2020 will not be affected or cancelled by reason of our holding the impugned corrigendum as bad-in-law. We make it clear that only those PACCS who have been registered on the basis of the impugned corrigendum during the period 14th February 2017 till the date of this order will be saved. It goes without saying that from the date of this order, no further registrations would be granted on the basis of the impugned 39 of 41 corrigendum since we have struck down the same.

39. We are guided in our above approach by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. V. George & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.15, and for the sake of convenience, we reproduce paragraph 14 of the said decision. “14. For the views we propose to take, it is not necessary for us to consider all the decisions relied upon by Mr Rajan. The legal position as regards the applicability of doctrine of prospective overruling is no longer res integra. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 142 of the Constitution of India may declare a law to have a prospective effect. The Division Bench of the High Court may be correct in opining that having regard to the decision of this Court in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab the power of overruling is vested only in this Court and that too in constitutional matters, but the High Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even without applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, indisputably may grant a limited relief in exercise of their equity jurisdiction.”

40. We have not given any finding with respect to other submissions made by the parties since, according to us, the writ petitions are being decided on the primary issue of validity of the impugned corrigendum.

41. In view of above, we pass the following order:- O R D E R

(i) The impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 is unconstitutional and same is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The registrations granted to PACCS during the period from 14th February 2017 till today would not be cancelled only on account of this judgment.

42. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.]