Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Naresh Kumar Chairman Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited v. State Of U.P. Thru' Sachiv Sahakarita And Others - WRIT - C No. 6925 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7450 (6 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


  Court No. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6925 of 2006

Naresh Kumar   . . .  Vs.  . .  .  State of U.P. and others.


Civil  Mic. Writ Petition No. 18972 of 2006

Naresh Kumar   . . .  Vs.  . . . . State of U.P. and others.


Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

1. There was a Co-operative Society by the name of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited  Chandpur district Bijnor. This society was bifurcated  into two societies and some villages  from this society were taken away and a new Co-operative Society called Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited Haldaur district Bijnor (Co-operative Society Haldaur )  was  formed. The remaining  villages  continued  to be in the same society which continued  to have same name as the Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited, Chandpur ( Co-operative Society Chandpur ).

2. In Co-operative Society Haldaur an interim Committee of Management was constituted  on 24.2.2004 in which  the petitioner was appointed  as Chairman and it was his duty to constitute regular Committee of Management  and to conduct  election within a period of six months but he failed to do so. On 9.1.2006 the Cane Commissioner passed an order  appointing  the District Cane Officer  as Administrator  of the Committee of Management  to hold elections. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 6925 of 2006 against this order in which interim orders were passed staying holding of the election till the shares are transferred  from the Co-operative Society Chandpur to Co-operative Society Haldaur. Fresh order for holding election was passed on 26.3.2006 which has been challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 18972 of 2006.

3. We have heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner, the  Standing Counsel for the State officers, Sri Ravindra Singh for the Registrar, Co-operative Societies,  and Sri J.P.Pandey for some of the members seeking impleadment in Writ Petition no. 18972 of 2006.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has made  three submissions before us:

(1)    Entire shares  of Co-operative Society Haldaur have not yet been transferred from the Co-operative Society Chandpur   and so no election can be held;

(2) The Registrar has not fixed  any date for holding           elections and as such the election cannot be held.


(3)     The members have not  given any declaration under Rule 48 of the U.P.Co-operative Societies Rules that they l           abide  by  the rules and regulations  and as  such the election cannot be held.

5. As regards  the first contention of the petitioner, the Registrar has filed a counter affidavit  in Writ Petition no. 6925 of 2006 which shows that  the certificate  has been issued by the Secretary of the Co-operative Society Chandpur,  in which  it has been mentioned that the entire shares have been transferred from Co-operative Society Chandpur to Co-operative Society Haldaur. In view of this it cannot be  said that the shares have not been transferred and election cannot be held.

6. As regards the second contention that under Rule 438 of the U.P.Co-operative Societies Rules , the Registrar has to fix  a date for the election, the Registrar has already issued notification on 6.2.2006 fixing date for election and as such there is no illegality in it.

7. So far as the  third submission of the  counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is  clear from Rule 48 that it is applicable  in respect of members the society which is formed for the first time. The Co-operative Society Haldaur has not been formed  for the  first time but it has been formed by bifurcation  from the existing Co-operative Society Chandpur. It is not disputed that there is no material difference  between the bye-laws  of the erstwhile co-operative society and the present society. The members have already given their declaration in the  previous society. Apart from it, it is the duty of the petitioner to obtain such declaration  and he cannot take advantage of his own default.

8. In view of this, both the writ petitions have no merit and they are dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.