Procedural lapses in convening meetings under cooperative rules do not invalidate no confidence motions; such rules viewed as directory, ensuring democratic processes are upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Sinha, J.

1. Mr. Ashok Lal, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of petitioner and reiterates his submission earlier made on moving the petition. Paragraph 1 from our order dated 3rd December, 2025 is reproduced below.

"1. Mr. Ashok Lal, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is Chairman of the cooperative society. Impugned is order/notice dated 13th November, 2025, issued by respondent no.2 (the District Magistrate) reviving the motion of no confidence against his client. He submits, the order is illegal."

Today Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State, of whom respondent no. 2 (the District Magistrate) was to answer our query on said order dated 3rd December, 2025, made to Mr. Roopesh Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel, appearing for State that day. Paragraph 3 from the order is reproduced below.

"3. We do not think it necessary to direct issuance of notice on other private respondents at this stage. Mr. Tiwari has adjournment to obtain written instruction on a provision or rule allowing for revival of a no confidence motion."

2. Dr. Tiwari relies on rules 458, 459 and 464 in Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968. The rules are reproduced below.

"458. (1) On receipt of the notice of no confidence as provided in Rules 456 and 457, the specified authority shall fix such-time, date and place as, he may consider suitable for holding a meeting for the purpose of consideration of the proposed no confidence motion:

Provided that such meeting shall be held within thirty-five days of the receipt of the notice of no confidence:

Provided further that at least twenty-one day's notice shall be given for holding such meeting.]

(2) The notice for meeting under sub-rule (1), shall also provide that in the event of the no confidence motion being duly carried, election of the new Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, shall also be held in the same meeting.

459. (1) The specified authority shall also nominate any Gazetted Government servant (other than an Officer of Department which is concerned with the supervision and administration of the Society concerned) to act as a Presiding Officer of the meeting in which the resolution for no confidence shall be considered.

(2) The quorum for such a meeting of the Committee of Management shall be [more than] half of the total number of members of the Committee.]

xxx xxx xxx xxx

464. If the motion for no confidence fails for want of quorum or lack of requisite majority at the meeting, no subsequent meeting for considering the motion of no confidence shall be held within six months of the date of the previous meeting."

(emphasis supplied)

First proviso under rule 458 says, meeting pursuant to the notice of no confidence shall be held within 35 days of receipt of the notice of no confidence. There is no dispute that the meeting was not held. Rule 464 is not attracted because no meeting was held. Dr. Tiwari submits, the authority was not available and therefore, could not convene the meeting. Hence, subsequent date for convening the meeting was given on impugned order dated 13th November, 2025.

3. Convening the meeting beyond 35 days of receipt of the notice of no confidence is not permissible by the Rules. Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of private respondent no. 4. He files counter affidavit and draws attention to view taken by a Division Bench of this Court, disclosed in it. The view was taken on judgment dated 3rd August, 2022 in Writ-C no. 20356 of 2022 ( Hariraj Singh Choudhary Vs. State of U.P. and others ). Mr. Mishra relies on par