And
Civil Appeals Nos. 5-7 of 1973
DISTRICT COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES INDUSTRIES (SURAT) . . Appellant;
Versus
MOHD. KADAR RANGOONI AND OTHERS . . Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2153 of 1972 and 5-7 of 1973, decided on November 27, 1986
Cooperative Societies — Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 — Section 96(1)(c) — Held, invalid Rasiklal Patel v. Kailasgauri Ramanlal Mehta, (1971) 12 GLR 355, approved Maganlal Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1974) 2 SCC 402 : (1975) 1 SCR 1, distinguished Precedent — Where decision of a High Court prevailing for long (sixteen years) on the basis of which numerous transactions taken place, Supreme Court's interference with that decision would not be justified [Ed.: See also Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma, (1987) 3 SCC 294, 302 (para 18) wherein the Supreme Court observed: “When a particular state of law has been prevailing for decades in a particular area and the people of that area having adjusted themselves with that law in their daily life, it is not desirable that the Court should upset such law except under compelling circumstances.”] Appeals dismissedR-M/7989.S
Order
The only question in this appeal is about the vires of Section 96(1)(c) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. This provision has been struck down by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Rasiklal Patel v. Kailasgauri Ramanlal Mehta (1971) 12 GLR 355. We have perused the judgment of the Gujrat High Court and we are unable to find any justification for interfering with the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. We may also add that the decision of the Gujarat High Court has stood for sixteen years and many thousands of transactions must have taken place on the basis of correctness of this judgment. We see no justification for interference in this case. The decision in Maganlal Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1974) 2 SCC 402, (1975) 1 SCR 1 on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant has no relevance whatsoever. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Comments