2025 Supreme(SC) 2044

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
The State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary and Others – Appellants
Versus
Milkiyat Singh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7050-7051 of 2010
Decided On : 15-12-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Multi-State cooperative society – Domicile or residence of members is irrelevant for determining whether a society attains status of a multi-State cooperative society – A cooperative society whose objects are confined to a single State cannot be treated as a multi-State cooperative society.
(2) Section 103 of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 does not, by itself, confer automatic or deemed status of a multi-State cooperative society upon every society registered under a State Cooperative Societies Act merely because parent State has undergone reorganization.
(3) Interpretation of Statute – A provision cannot be construed in isolation to fit a particular factual situation.

Headnote:

(A) Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 – Section 103 read with Section 5 – Transformation of cooperative society into a multi-State cooperative society – Scope of deemed conversion – Domicile or residence of members is irrelevant for determining whether a society attains status of a multi-State cooperative society – A cooperative society whose objects are confined to a single State cannot be treated as a multi-State cooperative society – Section 103 of Central Act is attracted only where objects of cooperative society extend to more than one State – Section 103 of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 does not, by itself, confer automatic or deemed status of a multi-State cooperative society upon every society registered under a State Cooperative Societies Act merely because parent State has undergone reorganisation – Applicability of Section 103 requires a factual enquiry in each case as to whether objects of society extend to more than one State – If objects are found to span more than one State, deeming fiction under Section 103 will operate and society would be treated as a multi-State cooperative society – If objects remain confined to only one State, status of society will remain unchanged. (Paras 12.13, 12.20, 14 and 15)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – A provision cannot be construed in isolation to fit a particular factual situation – Words in a statute must necessarily draw their meaning from context and scheme of enactment and cannot be interpreted in isolation. (Para 12.12)

Facts of the case:

Whether, by virtue of Section 103 of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, subject cooperative society, though originally registered under the statute enacted by appellant-State, stands transformed into a multi-State cooperative society on account of State reorganization?

By impugned judgment, High Court allowed writ petitions and held that cooperative societies in question could not be treated as State cooperative societies so as to attract legislation enacted by State, and that consequent to reorganization of erstwhile undivided State, they had attained character of multi-State cooperative societies.

Findings of Court:

Section 103 of the Central Act is attracted only where the objects of the cooperative society extend to more than one State. Consequently, we are unable to accept the submission of the private-respondents that merely because the area of operation of the society spans across two States, the same would render it a multi-State cooperative society.

Result : Appeal allowed.