SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
Mandeep Mann – Appellant
Versus
Registrar Of Co-operative Societies – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5597/2026|CM APPL. 27350/2026|CM APPL. 27351/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohit Rana, Sanyam Tandon, Aditya Choudhry, Himanshu Rohilla, Shivam Gaur, Sanjoli, Iti
For the Respondents: Shashi Pratap Singh, Shagun Sabharwal

Constitutional Courts should exercise judicial restraint and refrain from interdicting or stalling an ongoing election process once a notification is issued. All grievances concerning procedural irregularities or authority must be resolved through prescribed statutory mechanisms after the completion of the electoral process to ensure timely and fair outcomes.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Cooperative Societies Law - Election process - Challenge to notification - Once an election process is initiated, interference by Constitutional Courts is generally avoided to ensure the mandate of the membership is taken to its logical conclusion without delay or dilution. (Para 9)

(B) Election Law - Judicial review - Interference during electoral process - Courts are duty-bound to ensure elections are conducted in a free and fair manner, but should refrain from interdicting an ongoing process - Disputes pertaining to election irregularities, valid conduct, and the authority of presiding officials should be agitated through prescribed statutory remedies only after the completion of the entire electoral cycle. (Paras 9, 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the notification and the election schedule for the managing committee of a society, alleging that the officer appointed to conduct the elections lacked the necessary legal authority and that the prescribed procedural rules for the election were violated. The challenge was brought before the court shortly before the scheduled date of polling.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that once an election schedule is announced, judicial interference should be minimal to prevent disruption of the electoral process. All grievances, including the legality of the presiding officer's authority and procedural compliance, must be addressed in accordance with the established statutory framework after the election concludes.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should intervene and interdict an ongoing election process of a society based on allegations of procedural non-compliance and lack of authority of the presiding official.

Ratio Decidendi: Upholding the principle of judicial restraint in election matters, the court ruled that an ongoing electoral process must not be stalled. Aggrieved parties must pursue designated statutory remedies post-election to ensure elections proceed without undue delay, thereby protecting the integrity and authenticity of the democratic expression of the members.

Result: Petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedies after the completion of the election process.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petition, parties, and the announced election schedule. (Para 1 , 2 , 6)
2. contention regarding the authority of the returning officer and the availability of post-election remedies. (Para 3 , 4)
3. judicial restraint in interfering with ongoing election processes when specific grievances are absent. (Para 5 , 7 , 9 , 12)
4. dismissal of petition with direction to pursue statutory remedies post-election. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 13)

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Mandeep Mann under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Agenda Notice dated 26th March, 2026 issued by Respondent No. 2-Mr. O.P. Mishra, Administrator-cum-Returning Officer for conducting the electionsfortheManagingCommitteeoftheSadbhawanaCooperativeGroup Housing Society Ltd (hereinafter, ‘Society’). The Petitioner is stated to be a member of the said Society.

3. The submission of Mr. Mohit Rana, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is

that the Administrator-cum-Returning Officer who was appointed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’), did not have the power to act as a Returning Officer for conducting the said elections. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that there are various rules including the procedure for conducting the elections under Schedule II of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007, which have been violated.

4. Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, ld. Counsel for the RCS submits that the elections for the Managing Committee of the Society were announced way back on 26th March, 2026 and the polling is scheduled for 26th April, 2026. Further, the Petitioner has a remedy to challenge the said elections once the same are conducted and accordingly, at this stage, the same should not be interdicted. Reliance is placed upon the order dated 10th March, 2025 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2992/2025, titled Hari Shankar Singh v. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Anr.

5. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties. A perusal of the order by which the Administrator-cum-Returning Officer was appointed, would show that the said order clearly states that the Administrator-cum- Returning Officer is appointed for managing the affairs of the Society and for conducting the elections for a new Managing Committee. The said order was passed on 10th February, 2026 by the RCS and the same is extracted below:

“Whereas, Sadbhawna CGHS Ltd. Plot No. 11, Sector 11, Dwarka, Phase-1, Delhi-110075, is registered with the Department vide registration No. 893/GH under the provision of DCS Act and Rules.
And whereas, vide this office order of even number dated 03.06.2025 Sh. Ram Kumar Sawant, Section officer Home Department was appointed as

Administrator under Section 3 7(1) of DCS Act, 2003 for a period of six months to manage the affairs of the society until a new managing committee is duly elected. The term of the Administrator was also extended for a further period of 180 days vide this office order dated 29. 12.2025. Thereafter a representation was received from the Administrator regarding ambiguity of the orders of extension.
Now, therefore, I Sanjay Jha, Dy Registrar (H/Sec- VII) hereby convey the approval of the Registrar Co-op. Societies to appoint Sh. O P Mishra, DANICS(Retd) as Administrator in Sadbhawana CGHS Ltd. Plot No.11, Sector 11, Dwarka, Phase- 1, Delhi-110075 under section 37(1) of DCS Act, 2003 for the period of 180 days to manage the affairs of the society and conduct elections for a new Managing Committee.
The Administrator shall draw a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousands only) per month as honorarium along with conveyance charge out of the society funds”

6. TheagendafortheelectionsoftheManagingCommitteeoftheSociety was also issued on 26th March, 2026 and the schedule has been announced as under:

S.No.Programme FormsDateTimeVenue
1.I











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top