Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4352 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 38579 of 2025]
Decided On : 10-04-2026
Key Points: - (!) Maintanability threshold and threshold questions on writ jurisdiction vs statutory remedies under Act, 2001. - (!) Right to vote vs right to contest elections; eligibility vs disqualification distinctions. - (!) Section 58(1)-(2)(c) and exclusive Registrar adjudication over disputes touching constitution/management including elections. - (!) High Court writ jurisdiction limited; need exhaustion of statutory remedies per Titaghur, Umesh Shivappa etc. - (!) Internal governance disputes of co-operatives typically not public law; require statutory dispute resolution. - (!) Section 58(2)(c) deems election disputes as touching constitution/management. - (!) Complete statutory remedies and hierarchy (Sections 58, 60, 100-107) available. - (!) Writ petitions challenging bye-laws in context of elections not appropriate where statutory remedies exist. - (!) Titan: statutory remedy hierarchy under Act 2001. - (!) Writ petitions ought to have been rejected; efficacious remedy under Act. - (!) Subordinate legislation (bye-laws) intra vires; power source from Section 8 read with Schedule B; not disqualifications but eligibility conditions. - (!) Section 32 incorporates bye-laws into electoral framework; not independent from Act. - (!) Non-joinder and in rem issues; effect on affected parties. - (!) High Court erred by striking down across all unions without hearing all affected parties. - (!) Result: Appeal allowed; impugned judgments set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil appeal origins and implications (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. context of bye-laws and judicial intervention (Para 6) |
| 3. arguments on writ maintainability and jurisdiction (Para 7) |
| 4. counterarguments supporting bye-laws validity (Para 8) |
| 5. court's jurisdictional findings on representation (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. legal principles on maintainability and statutory obligations (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. statutory framework governing elections (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. bye-laws authority and scope of regulation (Para 20) |
| 9. court's final observations on parties and natural justice (Para 21) |
| 10. conclusion and order of the appeal (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present Civil Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 704 of 2015, whereby the intra-court appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan came to be dismissed and the common judgment dated 24.07.2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7465 of 2010 (Hari Ram Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan and others) and connected matters, was affirmed.
3. By the aforesaid common judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed a batch of writ petitions and declared Bye-law Nos. 20.1(2), 20.1(4), 20.2(7) and 20.2(9) as framed by various District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions in the State of Rajasthan, including those chaired by the present appellants to be ultra vires the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 and consequently non est in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge further directed that all ensuing elections to the said Unions shall be conducted by the State Co-operative Election Authority strictly in accordance with law, without reference to the impugned bye-laws. However, it was clarified that elections already conducted in the year 2010 shall not be disturbed.
4. For the sake of convenience, the impugned bye-laws are extracted below:
20.1(2) In the previous Audit it is classified as A or B category, provided State Government shall have right to grant relaxation to take part in the meeting in view of some special circumstances in view of White Revolution of state. But they shall not be able to take part in elections which were kept unclassified.
20.1(4) Except in natural calamity, the same did not remain closed for more than 90 days.
20.2 President of society shall not be eligible for election or after election, shall not be eligible to continue in Board of Director, if
20.2(7) Except the circumstances which are outside, he represents the society and has supplied the milk for at least 270 days to Sangh.
20.2(9) He represents the society which has failed to supply the minimum quantity of milk.”
5. Despite due service of notice, there was no representation on behalf of Respondent No. 1 – writ petitioner either in person or through any learned counsel. We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 as well as learned standing counsel representing Respondent No. 3 – State of Rajasthan.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6. The appellants are Chairpersons of five District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions in the State of Rajasthan, registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The said enactment stood repealed and replaced by the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 20012[For short, “the Act, 2001”] which came into force from 13.11.2002 along with the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 20033[For short, “the Rules, 2003”].
6.1. The bye-laws in question, framed under the statutory authority of Section 8 read with Schedule B, Clause 1 (da), (i), ® and (v) of the Act, 2001, govern the functioning of the
The bye-laws governing elections within co-operative societies are valid and enforceable, as they regulate participation without infringing on voting rights, thereby promoting effective governance wh....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to participate in the election process due to the inconsistency between Bye-law 24(viii) and Se....
The right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental right, and arbitrary term restrictions violate the autonomy of co-operative societies.
When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the ....
Section 16B of KCS Act creates an ineligibility for a member of an APCOS to continue as an active member in certain circumstances, which are totally unique to such a type of society.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
