Where a cooperative society autonomously resolves to undertake commercial development (e.g., demolition and construction of shops), courts will not interfere through writ jurisdiction in the absence of illegality or public interest violation. The judgment affirms existing precedent, narrows judicial intervention to cases involving statutory breach or public harm, and is binding authority within Uttarakhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/2943/2025 of PRAHLAD SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010163652025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Administrative law, Cooperative societies |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, will not interfere with the autonomous and commercial decisions taken by cooperative societies unless such decisions are shown to be illegal or against public interest. The decision to develop or commercialize society property rests with the society’s governing authority; commercial viability is not justiciable in a writ petition. A challenge based on mere membership or past leadership position does not automatically confer locus standi to assail such decisions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a member of Bahuuddeshiya Jhabrera Kisan Sewa Sahkari Smiti Ltd., challenged the decision of the Society’s Administrator to demolish its old office and construct 110 shops on the site. The State responded that the office was old, the action would augment income, and the petitioner had no special locus as an ex-Chairman. The Court found no public interest or illegality and declined interference. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, administrative tribunals, and sectoral regulators dealing with co-operatives |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the principle that courts exercising writ jurisdiction will not interfere with commercial decisions of autonomous cooperative societies unless illegality or public harm is demonstrated.
- Clarifies that mere membership or former office-bearing status does not automatically confer locus standi to challenge internal commercial decisions of such societies.
- Lawyers representing societies can rely on this judgment to resist challenges to commercial projects or redevelopment decisions unless the petitioner shows statutory breach or adverse impact on public interest.
- Commercial viability or prudence of society’s projects is not justiciable in writ proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court accepted the State’s submission that the society’s office was old and dilapidated, and the decision to construct 110 shops was intended to increase the income of the cooperative society.
- The Court emphasised that the society is an autonomous body entitled to take its own commercial decisions; such matters should not generally be challenged in writ jurisdiction.
- It was held that commercial viability of a proposed project is not open for assessment in proceedings under Article 226.
- The Court also found no public interest element in the petitioner’s challenge and observed that mere prior holding of an office (ex-Chairman) does not grant standing to challenge the society’s decisions.
- On these grounds, the writ petition was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the proposal by the society’s Administrator to demolish the existing office and construct 110 shops.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted that the existing building was old and dilapidated.
- Decision to construct shops was taken to augment the society’s income to meet expenses.
- Asserted that the petitioner did not have locus standi; being an ex-Chairman of the District Cooperative Bank does not entitle him to challenge the society’s decision.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a member of Bahuuddeshiya Jhabrera Kisan Sewa Sahkari Smiti Ltd., challenged a society decision to demolish its existing old office and construct 110 new commercial shops in its place. The State justified the decision as necessary for financial sustenance of the society, and contested the petitioner’s locus standi based on his status as a former Chairman of a District Cooperative Bank.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discussed the principles governing writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, reiterating that courts do not intervene in the commercial or autonomous decisions of cooperative societies unless those actions are illegal or against public interest.
- There was no interpretation of specific statutory provisions beyond this general constitutional framework.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment upholds and applies existing law on judicial restraint in reviewing commercial decisions of autonomous cooperative societies.