The High Court of Uttarakhand reaffirmed the principle that commercial decisions taken by autonomous cooperative societies, such as redevelopment and income augmentation projects, are not subject to judicial interference in writ jurisdiction unless clear public interest violations are shown. This judgment maintains settled precedent, clarifies lack of locus for individual members absent public interest, and will serve as binding authority for subordinate courts within Uttarakhand on writ petitions challenging society management decisions.
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 authority for similar writ petitions within Uttarakhand High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Cooperative Societies / Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court can interfere in purely commercial, administrative decisions of autonomous cooperative societies through writ jurisdiction, especially at the instance of an individual member. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that autonomous cooperative societies have the discretion to make commercial decisions, such as redevelopment and construction for income augmentation, so long as these are not against public interest. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because an individual member objects to such a decision, especially when no illegality or violation of public interest is demonstrated. The petitioner lacked locus standi as an ex-Chairman and individual member to challenge the Society’s internal decisions. The commercial viability and wisdom of the project are within the Society’s domain, not subject to judicial review via writ petition. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a member of Bahuuddeshiya Jhabrera Kisan Sewa Sahkari Smiti Ltd., challenged the Society’s decision to demolish its existing office and construct 110 shops, alleging improper exercise of authority. The State contested his locus standi and justified the decision as necessary for the Society’s revenue, given the old, dilapidated nature of the existing building. The court found no grounds for judicial intervention. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within the Uttarakhand High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts when dealing with challenges to cooperative societies’ commercial decisions via writ petitions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Restates that courts will not interfere with the commercial or administrative decisions of autonomous cooperative societies in writ jurisdiction, unless there is a breach of public interest or illegality.
- Holds that individual members, even ex-office bearers, do not have locus standi in the absence of demonstrated public interest or statutory violation.
- The commercial reasoning or viability of societies’ business decisions is not subject to judicial scrutiny in writ proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the autonomy of cooperative societies in managing their affairs, including redevelopment and commercial projects.
- It observed that the Society’s decision to demolish an old, dilapidated building and construct shops aimed at income augmentation and pursuing organizational interests.
- The writ jurisdiction is restricted; the courts are not to substitute their wisdom for that of the elected or appointed society administrators, unless the decision violates public interest or law.
- The petitioner, despite being an ex-Chairman and current member, failed to show locus standi, since no wider public interest or illegality was identified.
- The judgment emphasized that commercial feasibility is outside the purview of judicial review in such cases.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the Society’s proposal to demolish its existing office and construct 110 shops.
Respondent (State)
- Asserted that the Society’s office building was old and dilapidated.
- Stated that the project aimed to augment the Society’s income and meet its expenses.
- Argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi, contending that prior service as ex-Chairman of a bank does not confer standing to challenge the Society’s decisions.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a member of Bahuuddeshiya Jhabrera Kisan Sewa Sahkari Smiti Ltd., filed a writ petition against a decision by the Society’s Administrator to demolish the existing office building and construct 110 shops in its place. The State countered that the office was old and in disrepair, and that the redevelopment would support the Society’s financial health. The petitioner’s connection to the matter was as a member and ex-Chairman of a District Cooperative Bank.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment references the general autonomy afforded to cooperative societies under the applicable statutes, emphasizing the limited scope of interference through writ jurisdiction. It reiterates that unless there is a breach of statutory provision or public interest, courts cannot sit in appeal over the commercial decisions of such societies.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are referenced in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or changes to process are discussed in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms the existing judicial approach limiting High Court interference in the commercial/administrative decisions of autonomous societies through writ jurisdiction, unless substantial grounds are shown.