1. Division of cooperative societies — Disqualification of delegates and committee members under U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1416
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, INDRAJEET SHUKLA, JJ.
Sachin Kumar Jain - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 7367 of 2026
Decided On : 07-09-2026
Important Points
Division of a cooperative society under Section 126 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, creates a new juristic identity, triggering the cessation of delegate status under Rule 87(ix) and disqualification from the Committee of Management under Rule 453(1)(h), regardless of whether the original registration number is retained.
Subject
Cooperative Law - Management and Disqualification
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT : S.126, S.16
UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES : R.453(1)(h), R.87, R.87(ix)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.19(1)(c)
UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES : R.453(1)(h), R.87, R.87(ix)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.19(1)(c)
Headnote
(A) U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 16, 126, 7, and 9 - U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 - Rules 87(ix) and 453(1)(h) - Division of Cooperative Society - Cessation of delegate status - Disqualification from Committee of Management - Retention of registration number is a ministerial exercise and does not nullify the legal consequences of division - A society resulting from division is a new body corporate with a distinct juristic identity - Once a society is divided, the delegate ceases to hold office by operation of law under Rule 87(ix) - Consequently, the member becomes ineligible to continue in the Committee of Management under Rule 453(1)(h) as they are no longer a member of the general body. (Paras 41, 48, 64, 65)
(B) Statutory Procedure - When a statute prescribes a specific manner for doing a thing, it must be done in that manner or not at all - The exercise of power under Section 126 is a trigger that must be completed through the procedural framework of Section 16 to attain its statutory conclusion. (Paras 49, 56-59)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the continuation of three individuals as members and Chairman of the Committee of Management of a District Cooperative Bank. These individuals were delegates of three Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies which were divided by the Registrar under Section 126 of the Act, 1965, to form new societies. While the original societies retained their names and registration numbers, their areas of operation, assets, and liabilities were significantly altered. The petitioner contended that this division triggered disqualification under the Rules, while the respondents argued that the retention of registration numbers preserved their juristic identity.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the division of a society under the Act creates a new juristic identity regardless of whether the old registration number is retained. Such division triggers Rule 87(ix), causing the delegates to cease holding their positions. Since membership in the general body is a prerequisite for the Committee of Management under Rule 453(1)(h), the respondents became disqualified by operation of law.
Issues: Whether the division of a cooperative society under Section 126 of the Act, 1965, results in the cessation of a delegate's status under Rule 87(ix) of the Rules, 1968, and subsequent disqualification under Rule 453(1)(h), despite the retention of the original registration number.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the substantive character and legal identity resulting from the statutory process of division outweigh the label of a registration number. Division under Section 126 followed by Section 16 alters the society's juristic entity. Under Rule 87(ix), division automatically terminates the delegate's status. Applying the principle "sublato fundamento, cadit opus" (if the foundation collapses, the superstructure is bound to fall), the loss of delegate status necessarily leads to the loss of membership in the Committee of Management.
Result: The writ petition is allowed.
(B) Statutory Procedure - When a statute prescribes a specific manner for doing a thing, it must be done in that manner or not at all - The exercise of power under Section 126 is a trigger that must be completed through the procedural framework of Section 16 to attain its statutory conclusion. (Paras 49, 56-59)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the continuation of three individuals as members and Chairman of the Committee of Management of a District Cooperative Bank. These individuals were delegates of three Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies which were divided by the Registrar under Section 126 of the Act, 1965, to form new societies. While the original societies retained their names and registration numbers, their areas of operation, assets, and liabilities were significantly altered. The petitioner contended that this division triggered disqualification under the Rules, while the respondents argued that the retention of registration numbers preserved their juristic identity.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the division of a society under the Act creates a new juristic identity regardless of whether the old registration number is retained. Such division triggers Rule 87(ix), causing the delegates to cease holding their positions. Since membership in the general body is a prerequisite for the Committee of Management under Rule 453(1)(h), the respondents became disqualified by operation of law.
Issues: Whether the division of a cooperative society under Section 126 of the Act, 1965, results in the cessation of a delegate's status under Rule 87(ix) of the Rules, 1968, and subsequent disqualification under Rule 453(1)(h), despite the retention of the original registration number.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the substantive character and legal identity resulting from the statutory process of division outweigh the label of a registration number. Division under Section 126 followed by Section 16 alters the society's juristic entity. Under Rule 87(ix), division automatically terminates the delegate's status. Applying the principle "sublato fundamento, cadit opus" (if the foundation collapses, the superstructure is bound to fall), the loss of delegate status necessarily leads to the loss of membership in the Committee of Management.
Result: The writ petition is allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- cooperative law
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- mandamus (Para 2)
-
writ jurisdiction
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Abhishek Misra
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Devansh Misra, Mahesh Narayan Mishra, Satyam Singh
For the Petitioner: Abhishek Misra
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Devansh Misra, Mahesh Narayan Mishra, Satyam Singh
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: Division caused disqualification. Respondents: Original societies retained identity; no disqualification incurred. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
3. Division changes juristic identity despite retained registration number; Section 16 procedure is mandatory consequence of Section 126 order. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 )
4. Upon division, delegates cease under Rule 87(ix); loss of delegate status disqualifies committee membership under Rule 453(1)(h). (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 )
5. Writ petition allowed; respondents disqualified from committee and chairman positions due to delegate cessation. (Para 67 )
6. What is the legal consequence of dividing a cooperative society under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act?
Division under Section 126 read with Section 16 creates new juristic entities; the original society's identity is altered regardless of retained registration number. (Para 39 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 61 )
7. When does a delegate of a cooperative society cease to be a delegate under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules?
Under Rule 87(ix), a delegate ceases to be such if the society he represents is divided into two or more societies. (Para 64 )
8. What is the effect of a delegate ceasing to hold office on their membership in the committee of management?
Under Rule 453(1)(h), a person ceases to be a committee member if they are not a general body member; loss of delegate status triggers this disqualification. (Para 65 , 66 )
9. Must the procedure under Section 16 of the Act be followed after an order under Section 126?
Yes, Section 126 acts as a trigger, but the division is complete only upon fulfilling the mandatory procedure under Section 16. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 55 )
JUDGMENT :
Indrajeet Shukla, J.
1. Heard Mr. H.R.Misra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chandra, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Devansh Misra, Advocate, appearing along with Mr. Mahesh Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos. 6 to 8.
2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner seeking, inter alia, the following principal reliefs:
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 namely Commissioner/Registrar, Cooperative Societies and respondent no.3 namely Joint Commissioner/Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Saharanpur Region Saharanpur to take immediate action against respondent no.6, Ramnath Singh, respondent no.7, Pankaj Pal and respondent no.8, Brijendra Singh, who became disqualified on account of the order passed by Joint Commissioner/Joint Registrar dividing their society and thus, they ceased to became a delegate/General Body Member of the District Cooperative Bank and became disqualified under Rule 453(1) (h) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 .
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no.6, Ramnath Singh, respondent no.7, Pankaj Pal and respondent no.8 Brijendra Singh to function as member of the Committee of Management as they have incurred disqualification by virtue of 453(1) (h) of the Rules.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Secretary/General Manager of the District Cooperative Bank, Muzaffarnagar, respondent no.5 not to permit the respondent no.6, 7 & 8 to participate in the meeting of the Committee of Management of the District Cooperative Bank, Muzaffarnagar as they incurred disqualification under Rule 453 (1) (h).”
3. The factual matrix, in brief, is being summarised hereinafter for the adjudication of the controversy in question:
3.(i). The petitioner, having been elected as a delegate from Budhana Sahkari Krey-Vikrey Evam Prakriyatmak Sahkari Samiti Limited, Budhana, Muzaffarnagar and being a member of the General Body of the District Cooperative Bank, Muzaffarnagar, has instituted this petition with the claim that the election for constituting the Board of Directors/Committee of Management of the District Cooperative Bank, Muzaffarnagar, was held on 20.06.2023 for electing the members of the Committee of Management and, thereafter, its Chairman, Vice- Chairman and delegates on 23.06.2023.
3.(ii). The 6th respondent/Ram Nath Singh, was elected as Chairman of the Committee of Management of the District Cooperative Bank, Muzaffarnagar, (for short, ‘the Bank’) 7th respondent/Pankaj Pal, was elected as a member of the Committee of Management, and 8th respondent/Brijendra Singh, was also elected as a member of the Committee of Management.
3.(iii). The 6th respondent, as the delegate of B-PACS (Bahu- Uddeshiye Prathmik Gramin Cooperative Samiti), Kheda Mastan, the 7th respondent as the delegate of B-PACS, Muzaffarnagar Paschimi and the 8th respondent as the delegate of B-PACS, Penana, became members of the General Body of the Bank. They, thus, contested the elections and were elected as members of the Committee of Management of the Bank. The 6th respondent, Ram Nath Singh, was subsequently elected as Chairman of the Committee of Management of the Bank.
3.(iv). It is not dispute that respondent no. 3, namely, the Assistant Commissioner/District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Muzaffarnagar, passed an order for division of the society, namely, B-PACS, Kheda Mastan, in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 126 read with the procedure prescribed under Section 16 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1965’). The order of divi
