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)(J&K) 620

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR


Reserved on: 05.05.2026

Pronounced on: 15.05.2026

Uploaded on: 15.05.2026


CM No.2203/2026

In

WP(C) No.850/2026


MOHAMMAD LATIEF DAR ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT

Through: - Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawaja, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Iman Ab. Muiz, Advocate.

Vs.

UT OF J&K AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA.


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) By this order, application of the petitioner seeking stay of operation of the impugned order bearing Government Order No.7-JK(Coop) of 2026 dated 15.04.2026, is proposed to be disposed of.

2) In the writ petition, while laying challenge to the aforesaid order issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner has averred that at present there is no Board of Directors of J&K Cooperative Bank (hereinafter “the respondent Bank”), in place as the nominated Board of Directors has outlived its life and elections for constitution of the Board of Directors/Management in accordance with the provisions of the J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989, have not been held so far. It is the contention of the petitioner that in these circumstances, the Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir does not have authority or competence to issue any order with respect to the affairs of the respondent Bank including the appointment of Managing Director.

3) It has been submitted that the petitioner, who is a fulltime employee borne on the establishment of the respondent Bank, came to be appointed as Chief Executive Officer-cum-Managing Director of the respondent Bank vide order dated 01.04.2017. It has been further submitted that after taking over of the affairs of the respondent Bank by the nominated Board of Directors, the petitioner was attached to the office of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, and Additional Commissioner, Kashmir was appointed as Acting Managing Director in his place in terms of Order No.22-DIVK of 2020 dated 16.05.2020. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner with regard to his role relating to alleged irregularities but nothing was established against him. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in the services of the respondent Bank vide order No.02 of 2021 dated 25.05.2021.

4) It has been contended that various attempts of respondent No.1 to re-constitute the nominated Board of Directors met with failure as one such attempt was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 07.04.2023 passed in WP(C) No.174/2023. It has been submitted that, in order to overreach the orders of this Court, respondent No.1 issued order No.49-JK(Coop) of 2025 dated 14.10.2025, appointing one of its officers as interim Managing Director. The said action of respondent No.1 was challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.3065/2025 on the ground that the Government has no power to appoint the Managing Director. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 12.03.2026 and the order, whereby interim Managing Director was appointed by respondent No.1, was quashed. The said judgment is stated to have attained finality.

5) It has been contended that in defiance of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, respondent No.1 has again appointed an interim Managing Director of the respondent Bank in terms of impugned order dated 15.04.2026, which is beyond jurisdiction and competence of the said respondent. It has been contended that the action of respondent No.1 is nothing but an attempt to overreach the judgment of this Court. According to the petitioner, it is only the General Body of members of the Cooperative Society which is vested with power to control the management of the Society because a Cooperative Society enjoys autonomy in its financial, administrative and functional matters. The, action of the Government to appoint interim Managing Director is destructive of the autonomous and democratic nature of the respondent Bank.

6) Respondent No.1 has filed a short affidavit in opposition to the application for grant of interim. In the said affidavit, it has been submitted that the respondent Bank is going through a critical phase of administrative and institutional uncertainty in the absence of a nominated or elected Board of Directors and in such circumstances of administrative vacuum, the position of the Managing Director becomes very significant and important for regulating day to day

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