NARESH SHANKER SRIVASTAVA Vs STATE OF U.P. .
Case number: C.A. No.-000292-000292 / 2005
Diary number: 27117 / 2004
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 292-294 OF 2005
Naresh Shankar Srivastava ..…Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. .….Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1722 OF 2005
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. The present appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 10.11.2004
passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in
Writ Petition No. 5171 of 2002 along with 13 other similar connected
writ petitions. Since the common questions are involved in these appeals,
the same are being disposed of together with a common judgment.
2. The important legal issues which have arisen for consideration in these
appeals are whether after the bifurcation/re-organisation of the State of
Uttar Pradesh and creation of the State of Uttaranchal under the U.P.
Page 1 of 22
State Re-organization Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Re-
organisation Act’) which was promulgated on 9.11.2000, the affairs of
various cooperative societies carrying out their business in both the States
at the time of re-organisation shall be governed by the U.P. State
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UP Act’)
or by the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Multi-State Act’) and whether these societies would
automatically become Multi State Cooperative Societies with effect from
09.11.2000 i.e. the date of re-organisation of the State. This issue has
emanated because of an order dated 14.02.2001 passed by the Registrar
of Cooperative Societies to the effect that the U.P. Cooperative
Processing and Cold Storages Federation Limited, Lucknow (in short the
‘PACSFED’) is deemed to be a Multi State Cooperative Society under
Section 7 of the Multi-State Act. The said order was the subject matter
of the writ petitions out of which the present appeals arise.
3. Brief facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of present bunch of
appeals are required to be stated first. The PACSFED was registered on
25.11.1974 as apex cooperative society under the provisions of the UP
Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The area of operation of the
PACSFED was the whole state of Uttar Pradesh. In the year 2000, the
Page 2 of 22
Re-organisation Act was passed which came into force on 09.11.2000.
By the operation of the said Act, the State of Uttar Pradesh was
bifurcated and a new State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) was created
by carving out certain territories from the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. Due to the aforesaid re-organisation, the PACSFED is taken to have
become automatically a multi-state co-operative society on 09.11.2000
i.e. the date of re-organisation by virtue of operation of Section 95 of the
Multi-State Act. On 14.02.2001, the Central Registrar of the Multi State
Co-operative Societies issued a Registration Certificate granting
registration of the PACSFED under the Multi-State Act. Aggrieved by
this decision, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Lucknow filed a
revision on 18.04.2001 before the Central Government under Section 92
of the Multi-State Act challenging the issuance of aforesaid Registration
Certificate. However, on 06.02.2002 the said revision was dismissed by
the Central Government.
5. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Uttar Pradesh on 22.05.2002 filed two Writ Petitions bearing nos. 602
and 1710 of 2002 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the
aforesaid order dated 06.02.2002 of the Central Government. The High
Court by impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2004 allowed the
Page 3 of 22
said writ petition and quashed the Certificate of Registration dated
14.02.2001 and also the order of the Central Government dated
06.02.2002.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the High Court, the
present special leave petitions have been preferred. There were in total
six appeals against the said decision of the High Court. This Court vide
its order dated 17.01.2008 dismissed the appeal bearing C.A. No.
291/2005 as withdrawn. Another appeal bearing C.A. No. 290/2005 was
dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2009.
Therefore, only four appeals bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 292/293/294 of
2005 and 1722 of 2005 are before us for final disposal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on account of the
bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh into two States i.e. State of Uttar
Pradesh and the State of Uttaranchal, the area of operation of the
PACSFED extended to both the States on and from the date when the
State of Uttaranchal came into existence i. e. from 09.11.2000 and thus
the objects of PACSFED did not remain confined to one State and it
extended to both the States. By reason of extension of the area of
operation, the objects of PACSFED also automatically extended to the
aforesaid two States, as a consequence whereof the PACSFED
Page 4 of 22
automatically become a deemed multi-state cooperative society,
registered under the Multi-State Act. It is also submitted by him that the
High Court recorded an illegal finding that the PACSFED as apex
cooperative societies operating in the State of U.P., shall continue to
operate in two States and these societies should have been governed by
the U P State Act, unless and until a joint decision was taken by the two
States and the byelaws of these societies were amended accordingly, and,
since the byelaws of the societies were not amended and proper
resolutions were not passed, it cannot be said that the Multi-State Act
would have started to occupy the field.
8. Another contention placed before us by the appellant was that the High
Court erred in not considering the effect of Section 95 of the Multi-State
Act which takes complete care of the situation arising out of
reorganization of States on certain class of cooperative societies. He
submitted that Section 67 of the Re-organisation Act does not at all apply
in the present case as Section 95 of the Multi-State Act already exists in
the form of a central law which is sufficient to take care of cooperative
societies which would become Multi-State Cooperative societies from the
day of reorganisation of State. He further submitted that the cooperative
societies are not created under any Central Act or State Act but they are
Page 5 of 22
created by the members in accordance with the provisions of the Central
or State Cooperative Societies Acts, therefore, Section 67 of the Re-
organisation Act shall have no application. He next submitted that
Section 86 of the Reorganisation Act did not apply in the present case as
Section 86 extends the application of State laws of U.P. to the territories
of newly carved out State of Uttaranchal for a transitory period till the
State of Uttaranchal makes its own local laws and under Section 87 the
appropriate Government may make such laws within a period of two
years.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Multi-State Act is
not applicable in the present case as the affairs of societies formed before
the Reorganisation of the Uttar Pradesh were still to be governed by the
U.P. State Act. It is the case of respondents that the PACSFED including
the constitution of its Committee of Management was to be governed by
the relevant provisions contained in U.P. Act and the Rules and
Regulations of 1968 made thereunder. He submitted that the High Court
rightly held that the specific provision would exclude the general
provision by observing that all the provisions of the Multi-State Act shall
stand ousted because of the non-obstante clause contained in Section 93
of the Re-organisation Act and the provisions of Section 93 of the Re-
Page 6 of 22
organisation Act have an overriding effect on any law containing
inconsistent provisions. He argued that Section 67 of the Re-organisation
Act has taken care of exigencies, events pursuant to carving out of the
new States from the parent State of Uttar Pradesh. He submitted that the
bye-laws of PACSFED clearly mentioned that its area of operation “shall
be whole Uttar Pradesh”. No particular district or area has been
mentioned, and that under the objective and bye-laws, PACSFED can
operate only in the area of State of Uttar Pradesh, whatever it may be for
the time being. Before the constitution of the State of Uttaranchal (now
Uttarakhand) by the Re-organisation Act, the area falling under
Uttarakhand was within the State of Uttar Pradesh and on re-constitution
some area was taken away and the area of Uttar Pradesh stood reduced.
He stated that according to the bye-laws, the area in operation of
PACSFED would immediately and automatically get confined to the new
territory of Uttar Pradesh and it would not permit any operation in the
territory of Uttarakhand.
10. After referring to various provisions of the Re-organisation Act, the
learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the laws which were
in force at the time of re-organisation would continued to operate and
Part II of the Act shall not be deemed to have affected any change in the
Page 7 of 22
territories to which existing laws of Uttar Pradesh were applicable until
otherwise provided by a competent legislature. He further pointed out
that so far as the U P State Act was concerned, the territorial change in
Part II of the Re-organization Act would become effective only on and
from 21.5.2003. Before this date, Part II of the Act was not having any
impact on the U P State Act and PACSFED could not become Multi
State Cooperative Society. After 21.5.2003, 14 member societies of
PACSFED in Uttaranchal would automatically become registered under
the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘Uttaranchal Act’) by virtue of Section 129 of the Uttaranchal Act.
Hence, even after 21.5.2003, the PACSFED did not become a Multi State
Cooperative Society. He submitted that neither the validity of the
Uttaranchal Act nor the fact of deemed registration of these 14 societies
under the Uttaranchal Act has been challenged.
11. After referring to Section 67 of UP State Act, learned counsel further
submitted that where a body corporate constituted under a State Act
becomes an inter State body corporate then the said body corporate shall
continue to function and operate in those areas in respect of which it was
functioning and operating immediately before that day, subject to
directions of Central Government and until other provision is made by
Page 8 of 22
law. In the instant case, after the Re-organisation Act has been passed no
further directions and law were made by State of Uttaranchal, therefore,
the Multi-State Act would have no application to PACSFED.
12. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced by the respective parties,
it would be desirable to deal with and refer to the various provisions of
different statutes relevant and applicable to the matter at hand.
13.Section 7 of Multi-State Act which provides for the registration of any
Multi State Co-operative Society reads as follows:
“7. Registration - (1) If the Central Registrar is satisfied –
(a) that the application complies with the provisions of this Act and the rules;
(b) that the proposed multi-State cooperative society satisfies the basic criterion that its objects are to serve the interests of members in more than one State;
(c) that there is no other multi-State cooperative society having similar area of operation and identical objects;
(d) that the proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the provisions of this Act and the rules; and
(e) that the proposed multi-State cooperative society has reasonable prospects of becoming a viable unit, he may register the multi-State cooperative society and its bye-laws.
(2) Where the Central Registrar refuses to register a multi-State cooperative society, he shall communicate the order of refusal
Page 9 of 22
together with the reasons therefore, to such number of the applicants and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) The application for registration shall be disposed of by the Central Registrar within a period of six months from the date of receipt thereof by him:
Provided that if the Central Registrar is unable to dispose of the application within the period aforesaid, he shall make a report to the Central Government stating therein the reasons for his inability to do so, and the Central Government may allow him such further period or periods as is considered necessary to dispose of such application.”
Section 18 Multi-State Act provides for conversion of co-operative
society into Multi-State Cooperative Society which is quoted below:
“18. Conversion of cooperative society into multi-State Cooperative Society-
(1) A cooperative society may, by an amendment of its bye- laws, extend its jurisdiction and convert itself into a multi-State cooperative society:
Provided that no such amendment of bye-laws of a cooperative society shall be valid unless it has been registered by the Central Registrar.
(2) (a) Every proposal for such amendment shall be forwarded to the Central Registrar.
(b) If the Central Registrar, after consulting the Registrars of Cooperative Societies of the States concerned, has satisfied himself that such amendment fulfils the requirement of sub-section (2) of section 9, he may register the amendment within a period of six months from the date of receipt thereof by him:
Page 10 of 22
Provided that if the Central Registrar is unable to register the amendment within the period aforesaid, he shall make a report to the Central Government stating therein the reasons for his inability to do so, and the Central Government may allow him such further period or periods as is considered necessary to register the amendment.
(3) The Central Registrar shall forward to the cooperative society a copy of the registered amendment together with a certificate signed by him and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been registered.
(4) Where the Central Registrar refuses to register an amendment of the bye-laws of a cooperative society, he shall communicate the order of refusal together with the reasons therefore to the society in the manner prescribed within seven days from the date of refusal.
(5) (a) Once the amendment of bye-laws has been registered by the Central Registrar, the cooperative society shall, as from the date of registration of amendment, become a multi-State cooperative society.
(b) The Central Registrar shall forward to the cooperative society a certificate signed by him to the effect that such society has been registered as a multi- State cooperative society under this Act and also forward a copy of the same to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of the State concerned.
(c) The Registrar of Cooperative Societies referred to in clause (b) shall thereupon make an order directing that the society had, as from the date of registration by the Central Registrar, ceased to be a society under the law relating to co-operative societies in force in that State.”
Section 95 of the Multi-State Act contemplates about the future status
of the societies functioning immediately before the re-organisation of states:
Page 11 of 22
“95. Cooperative societies functioning immediately before re-organisation of States - (1) Where by virtue of the provisions of Part I of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, or any other enactment relating to reorganisation of States, any cooperative society which immediately before the day on which the reorganisation takes place, had its objects confined to one State becomes, as from that day, a multi-State cooperative society, it shall be deemed to be a multi-State cooperative society registered under the corresponding provisions of this Act and the bye-laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.
(2) If it appears to the Central Registrar or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the authorised officer) that it is necessary or expedient to reconstitute or reorganize any society referred to in sub-section(1) the Central Registrar or the authorised officer, as the case may be, may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, place before a meeting of the general body of that society, held in such manner as may be prescribed, a scheme for the reconstitution or reorganisation, including proposals regarding –
(a) the formation of new multi-State cooperative societies and the transfer thereto in whole or in part, of the assets and liabilities of that society, or
(b) the transfer, in whole or in part, of the assets and liabilities of that society to any other multi-State cooperative society in existence immediately before the date of that meeting of the general body (hereafter in this section referred to as the existing multi-State cooperative society).
(3) If the scheme is sanctioned by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present at the said meeting, either without modifications or with modifications to which the Central Registrar or the authorised officer agrees, he shall
Page 12 of 22
certify the scheme and upon such certification, the scheme shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, regulation or bye-laws for the time being in force, be binding on all the societies affected by the scheme, as well as the share-holders and creditors of all such societies.
(4) If the scheme is not sanctioned under sub-section (3), the Central Registrar or the authorised officer may refer the scheme to such Judge of the appropriate High Court, as may be nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice thereof, and the decision of that Judge in regard to the scheme shall be final and shall be binding on all the societies affected by the scheme as well as the shareholders and creditors of all such societies.
Explanation - In this sub-section, "appropriate High Court" means the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the principal place of business of the multi-state cooperative society is situated.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a scheme under sub-section (2) includes any proposal regarding the transfer of the assets and liabilities of any multi-State cooperative society referred to in clause (b) thereof, the scheme shall not be binding on such multi-State cooperative society or the shareholders and creditors thereof, unless the proposal regarding such transfer is accepted by that multi-State cooperative society by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present at a meeting of its general body.”
(emphasis added)
14. Sections 67 of the Re-organisation Act deals with the continuance of
existing body corporate when it provides :
“67. General provision as to statutory Corporations.-
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided by the foregoing provisions of this Part, where any body corporate constituted under a Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act for the existing
Page 13 of 22
State of Uttar Pradesh or any part thereof has, by virtue of the provisions of Part II, become an inter-State body corporate, then, the body corporate shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function and operate in those areas in respect of which it was functioning and operating immediately before that day, subject to such directions as may from time to time be issued by the Central Government, until other provision is made by law in respect of the said body corporate.
(2) Any directions issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) in respect of any such body corporate shall include a direction that any law by which the said body corporate is governed shall, in its application to that body corporate, have effect subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the direction.”
(emphasis added)
Section 86 of the Re-organisation Act provides for the territorial
extent of laws:
“86. Territorial extent of laws.-The provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have affected any change in the territories to which the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1961 and any other law in force immediately before the appointed day, extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of Uttar Pradesh shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority be construed as meaning the territories within the existing State of Uttar Pradesh before the appointed day.
Section 93 of the Re-organisation Act is the non-obstante clause:
93. Effect of provisions of the Act inconsistent with other laws.-The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.”
Page 14 of 22
15. A perusal of the above-mentioned provisions makes it crystal clear that
Section 95 of the Multi-State Act will be squarely applicable to the case
in hand. This provision addresses a situation like the present one. It
provides that where the object of the cooperative society is confined to
one State would become from the date of reorganization of State, a Multi
State Cooperative Society by virtue of Part II of State Reorganisation Act
and then it shall be deemed to be Multi State Cooperative Society and the
bye-laws of such Society shall continue to be in force until altered.
16. It is to be kept in mind that Section 95 of the Multi-State Act has been
incorporated to meet a particular situation. The said Section provides that
it would be operative as a consequence of reorganisation of States and
particularly when any area or portion of area of the Society is bifurcated
or divided and then fell in the jurisdiction of two State administrations.
The idea is to obviate the administrative stalemate arising out of creation
of a new State and new administration. This section is independent of all
other sections of the Act. The Multi-purpose Co-operative Society has
been defined as a Society registered or deemed to be registered under the
Act and includes a National Co-operative Society. Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8 deal with how a Multi-State Co-operative Society could be
registered under the Central Act. In other words, by voluntary acts of the
Page 15 of 22
concerned persons a Multi-State Co-operative Society could be formed if
it satisfies the conditions laid down in the aforesaid sections. As the
definition of Multi-State Co-operative Societies indicates, there are two
situations envisaged as to how a Multi-State Cooperative Society comes
into being. One is registered after observing formalities of Sections 4, 5,
6, 7 and 8 and the other is deemed Multi-State Co-operative Societies as
envisaged under section 95 of the Central Act.
17. As noted earlier, Section 95 of the Multi-State Act takes care of a
situation arising out of re-organisation of States of certain class of co-
operative societies. Indeed, the very rationale or legal justification of
having such a provision in the statute book is to provide continuity to
those co-operative societies, the objects of which were confined to one
State immediately before the day on which the re-organisation takes
place but as from the day of the re-organisation of the State its object
extends to more than one State, by declaring that such co-operative
societies shall be deemed to be a multi state co-operative societies,
registered under the corresponding provisions of the Multi-State Act. The
very purpose of having this kind of provision is to stop the applicability
of a State Co-operative Societies Act over more than one State as a State
Act cannot have extra-territorial operation and the multi-state co-
Page 16 of 22
operative societies cannot be regulated by a State Co-operative
Societies Act.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that in view
of Section 67 of the Re-organisation Act, Section 95 of the Multi-State
Act has no application. However, we do not find any merit in such
contention as Section 67 of the Re-organisation Act does not at all apply
to the facts of the present case. Section 95 of the Multi-State Act already
exists in the form of a central law which takes care of and makes
provisions for such co-operative societies which as and from the day of
the re-organisation of a particular State become Multi State Co-operative
societies.
19. The word used in Section 67 of the Re-organisation Act is “subject to
such directions as may from time to time be issued by the Central
Government, until other provision is made by law in respect of the said
body corporate” which is of vital significance. It gives an unmistakable
impression that the need for a direction of the Central Government would
arise only in respect of the applicability of a State law to the body
corporate which by virtue of the re-organisation of State become inter-
state body corporate. This is quite evident from a reading of sub-section
(2) of Section 67 of the Re-organisation Act. But when a central Act (in
Page 17 of 22
the present case the Multi-State Act) already contains a provision in the
form of Section 95 which clearly embraces such co-operative societies
within its fold which as and from the date of re-organisation of the State
become multi-state cooperative societies, there is no legal requirement of
issuing any direction by the Central Government for making the Multi-
State Act applicable.
20. So far as the contention regarding the applicability of Section 86 of the
Re-organisation Act is concerned, it would not be applicable in the
present case as Section 86 of the Re-organisation Act cannot affect the
Multi-State Act which is a central legislation. There is no denying of the
fact that a central law viz. Section 95 of the Multi-State Act already
exists in the statute book to govern and regulate the functioning of the
cooperative societies which as and from the date of reorganisation of the
State of U.P. become multi-State cooperative societies. Similarly, Section
93 of the Reorganisation Act would also have non-application in the
present case since the aforesaid provision cannot override Section 95 of
the Multi State Act, which is a central Act.
21. In the case of Anand Mal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 Raj. 218, the
High Court of Rajasthan, while interpreting Section 119 of the State
Organisation Act, 1956 which is in pari materia to Section 86 of the U.P.
Page 18 of 22
Act held that Section 119 of the State Organisation Act would have no
application to the Central Acts.
22. Similarly, in the case of Mapusa Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. G.S.
Patil, MANU/MH/0342/1998, the Bombay High Court held that Section
95 of the Multi-State Act is an independent provision which resolves the
situation arising out of operation of law and avoids chaos and confusion
arising out of the reorganisation of a State.
23. Besides, we cannot lose sight of the fact that Section 18 of the Multi-
State Act lays down a procedure for conversion of a State cooperative
society into a multi-State cooperative society whereas Section 95 of
Multi-State Act contained in Chapter XII deals with a specific situation
in which certain cooperative societies would become deemed multi-State
cooperative societies automatically by operation of law. Therefore, the
finding of the High Court that until the procedure laid down for
converting a cooperative society into a multi-State cooperative society is
followed, the cooperative society would continue to be a State
cooperative society to be governed and regulated by the provisions of
U.P. Act, is not correct.
Page 19 of 22
24. It has been contended by the respondents that in view of Section 129 of
the Uttaranchal Act which came into force in 2003, 14 member societies
of PACSFED in Uttaranchal would automatically become registered
under the Uttaranchal Act. However, the said contention is legally
untenable. Once the State of U. P. was bifurcated by the Re-organisation
Act which came into force on 09.11.2000, Section 95 automatically got
attracted. By virtue of Section 95 of the Multi-State Act, PACSFED
becomes a Multi-State Society. On 14.02.2001, when the Central
Registrar of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies issued the
Registration Certificate granting registration of the PACSFED under the
Multi-State Act, admittedly, the Uttaranchal Act of 2003 was not in
existence. Even otherwise, a State legislation viz. Uttaranchal Act which
has been enacted subsequently cannot have an overriding effect over a
central law viz. the Multi-State Act. The Uttaranchal Act can govern and
regulate the cooperative societies whose objects extend to and apply
within the State of Uttaranchal. So, the finding of the High Court that
with the enforcement of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act, 2003,
with effect from 21.5.2003, the Multi-State Act shall not be applicable is
erroneous. The byelaws of the PACSFED have not been amended so far.
The area of operation of the PACSFED as laid down in its byelaws is still
the same as it was on the date of the reorganisation of the State of U.P.
Page 20 of 22
Therefore, it would be legally impermissible to say that now the area of
operation of the PACSFED is confined to the State of U.P. alone and that
it has ceased to be a multi-State cooperative society. As far as withdrawal
of member-cooperative societies of the PACSFED operating in the State
of Uttaranchal is concerned, the deemed conversion of a cooperative
society into a multi-State cooperative society by virtue of Section 95 of
the Multi-State Act is an irreversible process and the membership of a
multi-State cooperative society in a particular State at a given point of
time is only a fortuitous circumstance on the basis of which a multi-State
cooperative society cannot automatically revert to assume the character
of a State cooperative society. Further, there is no provision in the Multi-
State Act which permits such automatic conversion of a multi-State
cooperative society into a State cooperative society by operation of law.
The only relevant consideration for continuance of a multi-State
cooperative society as a multi-State cooperative society is that it should
have its objects not confined to one State and since the objects of the
PACSFED still remain the same as it was immediately before the
reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh, it shall be deemed to be a
Multi-State co-operative society by virtue of deeming provision of
Section 95 of the Multi-State Act.
Page 21 of 22
25. In view of the foregoing discussions the PACSFED is a deemed multi
State cooperative society registered under the corresponding provision of
the Multi-State Act, 1984 as and from the date of the reorganisation of
the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the impugned judgment and
order dated 10.11.2004 is liable to be set aside, which we hereby do.
26.Appeals are accordingly allowed.
………………………..J. [S.B. Sinha]
...………………………J. [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]
New Delhi May 6, 2009
Page 22 of 22