Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Mehta Transport Co-Operative … vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 30 July, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:25335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 4548 of 2024 a/w
CWP No. 10551 of 2024
Reserved on : 01.07.2025
.
Decided on : 30.07.2025
1. CWP No. 4548 of 2024
The Mehta Transport Co-operative Society and others.
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
2. CWP No. 10551 of 2024
The Mehta Co-operative Society Branch office, Mamoor.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioners : Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal,
Advocate (through V.C.), with Ms.
Aruna Chauhan, Advocate, in
both petitions.
For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional
Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 & 2, in CWP No.
4548 of 2024 and for respondent
No.1 to 3, in CWP No. 10551 of
2024.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
2
2025:HHC:25335
Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior
Advoate, with Mr. Somesh
Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No.3 to 9, in CWP
No. 4548 of 2024 and for
.
respondents No.4 to 10, in CWP
No. 10551 of 2024.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
CWP No. 4548 of 2024
By way of writ petition, i.e., CWP No. 4548 of 2024,
the petitioners primarily are seeking the quashing of order
dated 04.05.2024, passed by respondent No.1, in Appeal No.
02 of 2024, titled Meenakshi Mehta & Ors. Vs. Mehta Transport
Cooperative Societies & Ors. The other reliefs prayed for in the
writ petition are not being gone into by the Court, as arguments
were not addressed qua the said reliefs and the parties
restricted their contentions vis-a-vis the legality of order dated
04.05.2024.
2. Along-with present petition, CWP No. 10551 of
2024 was also listed and parties agreed that the fate of the said
writ petition would depend upon the outcome of the present writ
petition and, therefore, no independent arguments are
addressed in the said writ petition.
3. This Court also would like to observe at this stage
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
3
2025:HHC:25335
itself that as this Court has been called upon to go into the
legality of the order that has been passed by the Secretary,
Corporation, it has restricted itself to the exercise of the power
.
of judicial review and heard the parties strictly on the legality of
said order within the parameters of the scope of judicial review
of a quasi-judicial order.
4. The Authority has passed the impugned order in
compliance to the order(s) passed by this Court in cases
mentioned in the impugned order itself, which cases were
disposed of by this Court on 11.01.2024. Said order is being
quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“By way of CWP No.3020 of 2018, titled as
Meenakshi Mehta and others versus the Mehta
Cooperative Transport Society and others, thepetitioners therein have prayed for the following reliefs:-
i) “Directing the Assistant Registrar
Cooperative Society and Returning Officer to
remove from the voter list respondents No.6 to18, as per annexure A-8.
ii) Directing the Assistant Registrar Cooperative
Society and Returning Officer not to conduct
any election before 23.03.2020 in compliance
of order dated 25.07.2018.
iii) That in case the Hon’ble Court comes to the
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
4
2025:HHC:25335
conclusion that the election be conducted then
the same be conducted on the basics of the
voter list as prepared for election on
23.05.2015 and new election programme be.
framed and the petitioners may be allowed to
participate in the election.
iv) Declaring members of the Society enrolled
after 23.03.2015 by way of various resolutions
as illegal and in contravention to the
Cooperative Society Acts and rules.
v) Directing the Assistant Registrar
Cooperative Society/authorities concerned to
r hold free and fair inquiry for fuzzing,
embezzling and forging the records by
respondent No.5 which is pending before the
Arbitrator under section 72.”
2. By way of CWP No.622 of 2020, titled as Nirmla
Mehta and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh
and others, the petitioners therein have prayed for the
following reliefs:-
“a) The impugned Orders vide No 6-27/2017-
Coop (T&M)-loose dated 07-01-2020 as
Annexure-P- 29 & Order No 6-27/2017-
oop(T&M)- dated 18-01-2020 as Annexure-P-
30(1) to 30(5), passed by Respondent No 2
may kindly be set- aside and powers of
Managing Committee elected on 22-12-2018
may kindly be restored in the interest of Justice
and equity.
b) The Area of operation of the Society may
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
5
2025:HHC:25335
kindly be declared as Tehsil Solan in the
interest of justice and equity.”
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners stated that as of now only relief (b) survives.
.
4. By way of CWP No.1316 of 2022, titled as
Meenakshi Mehta and others versus State of Himachal
Pradesh and others, the petitioners therein have prayed
for the following reliefs:-
“I) Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 07-12-2021 Annexure P-
3 being in direct violation of provisions of H.P
Cooperative Act, 1963.
r II) Writ in the nature of quo-warranto directing
the respondent No.2 to adjudicate upon the
appeal No.39 of 2021 Annexure P- and appeal
No.76 of 2021 on merit and pass an order in
accordance with law.
III) Writ in the nature of mandamus directing
respondent No.2 to discharge his statutory
functions by deciding the controversy
effectively, conclusively and in accordance
with the provisions of Himachal Pradesh
Cooperative Society Act, 1968.”
5. By way of CMPMO No.3 of 2019, titled as
Meenakshi Mehta and others versus The Registrar
Cooperative Society and others, the petitioners therein
have prayed for the following reliefs:
“1) Declare the formation of Managing
Committee vide Letter No.10-522/2108- Coop.
(Law) dated 27-12-2018 in RSA No.522/2018-::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
6
2025:HHC:25335
titled as the Mehta Transport Co-operative
Society ltd. versus State of H.P. and vide letter
dated 24-12- 018 to be wrong, illegal null and
void and non-est in the eyes of law.
.
2) Declaration to the effect that till date no new
Managing Committee is formed in furtherance
of elections dated 22-12- 108 as apparently all
the members including petitioners were not
intimated or associated while the same alleged
formation of managing committee.
3) Restraining the illegal Managing Committee
formed not to manage the society and directing
respondents to administer the Society through
Administrator, so that the funds of the society
may not be misappropriated and to speed up
the inquiry.
4) Restraining respondent No.1, 2 and 3 from
not handing over any powers to the
respondents 5 to 11 and particularly to
respondent No.5 Mr. Raghuvinder Singh Mehta
in any manner.
5) Directing the Administrator to take charge
vide order dated 26-09-2018 to continue on
behalf of the society till the petition under
section 72 of the act and inquiry under section
67 of the act matter is not finally adjudicated
and till the in the writ petition No.CWP 3020 of
2018 titled as Meenakshi and others Vs. The
Mehta Co- operative Transport Society and
others is not decided.”
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
7
2025:HHC:25335
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this
Court suggested that interest of justice would be served
in case the surviving relief in CWP No.622 of 2020, i.e.,
what is the area of operation of the society in issue is
.
decided by a statutory authority, after hearing all the
effected parties and thereafter the appeal, which stands
rejected vide impugned order, which has been assailed
in CWP No.1316 of 2022, can be gone into by the
Appellate Authority afresh.
7. As learned counsel for the parties have agreed
to the suggestions so made by the Court, therefore, as
agreed, all these petitions are disposed of by passing
the following directions:-
r “a) The issue of the area of operation of
Himachal Pradesh cooperative Societies shall
be decided by Principal Secretary/Secretary
(Co-operation) to the Government of HimachalPradesh within a period of two months from
today, after giving an opportunity of being
heard to all the parties.
(b) In the course of the adjudication of this
particular issue, the authority shall also decide
the issue of the voter list, in terms of relief
prayed for CWP No.3020 of 2018.
(c) The parties shall be at liberty to place the
pleadings in all these petitions before the
Secretary concerned. The parties shall also be
at liberty to place additional material before the
Principal Secretary/ Secretary (Co-operation), if
so desired, for which one opportunity shall be::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
8
2025:HHC:25335
granted to all the parties by the Secretary.
(d) After the decision of the Secretary on the
said issues, Registrar Cooperative Societies
shall hear the parties afresh and decide appeal.
No.39 of 2021 in accordance with law on the
basis of the material already on record as also
the order of the Secretary that shall be passed
pursuant to the directions being passed by the
Court today.”
8. At this stage, Mr. Kulwant Singh Katoch, learned
counsel representing the Mehta Cooperative Transport
Society, has informed the Court that an office order has
been passed by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative
Societies Solan, H.P., dated 8th January, 2024,
appointing an Administrator of the Cooperative
Societies, which order is in violation of the provisions of
Section 37 of the Act, itself, which is opposed to by Mr.
Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners. All that this Court can observe is that in case
the parties aggrieved by the issuance of this office
order, then, it may have recourse to such remedy, as is
available in law.
9. All, these petitions stand disposed of in above
terms. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the cases and the Principal
Secretary/Secretary (Co-operation) as well as Registrar
shall be performing decide the matter strictly in
accordance with law and Rules etc. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
9
2025:HHC:25335
10. The Registrar shall deals the appeal within six
weeks as from the date of the passing of the order by
the Principal Secretary/Secretary (Co- operation), which
the party shall be at liberty to bring to the notice of the
.
Registrar so that he can start the hearing of the appeal
afresh. COPC No.24 of 2021
11. In view of the directions passed in the above
mentioned writ petitions, the contempt petition not
pressed, the same is closed and notice discharged.”
5. A perusal of said order demonstrates that the cases
were disposed of by this Court by directing Principal Secretary,
Corporation, to decide the issue of the operation of the
Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Society and the issue of voter
list in terms of relief prayed for in CWP No. 3020 of 2018. It was
mentioned in Paragraph No.8 of the order that as far as the
issue raised by the parties, i.e., Mehta Transport Cooperative
Society, with regard to the appointment of an Administrator of
the said Cooperative Society by the Authority vide order dated
08.01.2024 is concerned, said issue could be raised by the
agreed party by having such recourse in law, as was available
to the party.
6. In terms of the impugned order, the Secretary
Corporation to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
10
2025:HHC:25335
decided the matter as under:-
“4. Brief facts as emerging from the respondents
submission are that petitioners have tendered resignation
and had also applied for the extension of the area of.
operation of the society which was not approved by the
ARCS Solan in stipulated time and it is to be taken as
deemed approved amendment. The petitioners have noright or interest in the society in any form and all action of
the respondent have been duly approved in the general
house the society in which petitioners were present. Theoutgoing Committee has been elected according to act
and rule. Further it is submitted by the Respondent that
area of operation of Society is Tehsil Solan & dulyapproved in General House of Society & ARCS Solan
after receiving application dated 08.09.2011 has not
decided the same within stipulated period of 90 days,
hence amendment deems to be registered on 07.12.2011
i.e. from the dated of receiving application & in addition tothat area of operation deems to be registered when
ARCS after considering Tehsil Solan as area of operationof Society had approved the election programme on the
basis of which election of Society was conducted on22.12.2018 and new elected Managing Committee of
Society had duly been hpheld by the Hon’ble Court ofIndia. Again it is submitted that the Contesting
Respondents No. 3 to 9 are not the members of
Petitioners Society as they had neither challenged the
decision of General House held on 16.04.2017 nor
challenged the decision of General House held on
30.09.2020 despite knowledge and in addition to that
Registering Officer has no authority to add contesting::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
11
2025:HHC:25335
Respondents in final voter-list of Society, hence order
passed the Registering Officer is wrong, illegal, arbitrary
and against law and is reuired to be set-aside and
presently there are 21 members in the Petitioners.
Society.
5. I have gone through the submissions made by
Ld.Counsel for parties in detail and also perused therecord from Assistant Registrar of Societies, Solan and
heard the submissions of Cooperative Department. From
the detail examination of the record it emerges that the
entire dispute pertains to removal of few petitioners fromthe society and consequent approval of committee of
respondents in election dated 22.12.2018, and two
aspects of this dispute one area of operation and othervoter list are to be decided in this case only.
On the first aspect which is area of operation of
the society there is concurrent finding of the Registrar
Cooperative society based on reports under section67,69(i), 69(ii) of HP Cooperative societies Act 1968
which stands is reiterated by the Registrar Cooperative
Societies before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in hisaffidavit dated 28th November 2020. All these reports
and affidavit are stating that the area of operation of the
said society was never extended there was no deemed
approval. It is further stated by the Registrar that manyrequest were received for amendment and extension of
the area of operation of the society which were turned
back as firstly documents were incomplete and secondly
as entire dispute was pending before the Hon’ble High
Court therefore till then no amendment can be done. The
entire record proves that area of operation of the society::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
12
2025:HHC:25335
was never extended by the ARCS Solan at any time and
it remained village Shamtti-Shamlech.
The Respondents are claiming deemded
amendment but according to section 11 of HP.
Cooperative Society Act 1968 no amendment is valid
unless approved by two third majority and for that
purpose three copies of amendment is forwarded. In thepresent case no amendment was available before ARCS
Solan which would be called a valid amendment except a
simple application by the Secretary. Therefore Area of
operation remained Shamtti -Shamlech.
On the Second aspect of voter list it is clear that
when area of operation of the society was Shamtti-
Shamlech then no person could have been enrolled fromoutside area of operation of the society and the election
dated 22.12.2018 in which voter list was prepared of
members outside the area of operation of the society was
an illegal voter list and people from outside the area ofoperation of the society casted the vote in the election
dated 22.12.2018 and therefore election was illegal and
invalid. When the Registrar is stating that area ofoperation of society was not extended then definitely
people-members from within the area of operation should
have been included in voter list only and not outsiders.
The claim of the respondent that few petitioners
resigned is again contrary to the finding of the Deputy
Registrar Consumer dated 14.12.2018 where he has
held the resolution no. 4 &5 not in continuity with main
resolution and have been added subsequently and
resignation of few petitioners are not proved. The Order
has not been assailed till date and has force of law.
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
13
2025:HHC:25335
In view of above reasoning it is held that area of
operation of the said society is village Shamtti-Shamlech
and the election dated 14.12.2018 were based on illegal
voter list hence is an invalid election. There is violation of.
rules 11(e) of HP Cooperative Societies Rules 1971 and
the voter list forming the bases of election dated
22.12.2018 was prepared in direct violation of HPCooperative Societies Act and Rules. Accordingly
Present appeal is devoid of merits. Case file be
consigned to record room after due completion.
Announced.”
7. In terms of the order under challenge, the Secretary,
Corporation has held that the area of operation of the Society
was Shamti and Shamlech, because no amendment was
incorporated in the Bye-laws of the Society in terms of the
provision of Section 11 of the 1968 Act and no amendment was
available before A.R.C.S. Solan, which could be called a valid
amendment. What was available was a simple application by
the Secretary of the Society. Besides this, Secretary,
Corporation further held that it was clear that when area of
operation of the Society was Shamti-Shamlech only, no person
could have been enrolled as Member from outside the area of
the operation of the Society. Election held on 22.12.2018 in
which voter list was prepared including outside Members, i.e.,
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
14
2025:HHC:25335
Members outside the area of operation of Society, was on the
basis of an illegal voter list as people from outside the area of
operation of the Society cast their vote in the said election
.
dated by 22.12.2018, which election, therefore, was illegal and
invalid. Secretary, Corporation further held that when Registrar,
Cooperative Societies has held that the area of operation of
Society was not extended, then definitely people/Members from
within the area of operation only should have been included in
the voter list and not from outside. The claim of the
respondents (present petitioners) that few Members resigned,
was contrary to the findings of the Deputy Registrar, Consumer
dated 14.12.2018, in terms whereof, said Authority concluded
that Resolutions No.4 and 5 of Resolution dated 15.06.2016
were not in continuity with main resolution and had been added
subsequently and the resignation of some of the respondents
were not proved and said order of Deputy Registrar had not
been challenged and was in force. On these reasonings,
Secretary, Corporation held that as the area of operation of the
Society is village Shamti-Shamlech and as election dated
14.12.2018 was based on illegal voter list, hence, same was
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
15
2025:HHC:25335
invalid election. There was violation of the H.P Cooperative
Societies Rules, 1971 and the voter list forming the basis of
election dated by 22.12.2018 was prepared in direct violation of
.
the H.P Cooperative Societies Act and Rules.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the
Authority below erred in appreciating that there was a deemed
extension of the area of operation of the Society and in terms of
the meeting of the Society convened on 16.04.2017, certain
Members quit the Society voluntarily, whereas, certain
Members were included in it. He further submitted that fresh
elections took place in the year 2018 and there was no
challenge to the elected Committee by way of any Election
Petition. He further submitted that the application filed by Shri
K. S. Mehta, seeking an Inquiry under Section 67 of the H.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, could not have been entertained by
the Authority for the reason that it did not meet the requirement
of minimum 1/3rd of the Members seeking Inquiry. He further
submitted that the amendment in the Bye-laws was carried out
by the Managing Committee as well as the General House and
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
16
2025:HHC:25335
the proceedings of the said General House dated 06.09.2011,
which are at Page-91 of the paper-book demonstrate that
Resolutions No.4 and 5 therein, were signed by 9 people and 8
.
of them were the respondents. He further submitted that the
objections were raised belatedly and in the absence of there
being any challenge to the Constitution of the Managing
Committee by way of an Election Petition, the entire process
undertaken by the authorities was bad in law and this extremely
important aspect of the matter was ignored by the Secretary,
while passing the impugned order.
9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the
private respondents submitted that the alleged amendment
carried out was a sham amendment as the same was in
violation of the statutory provisions of the Act. Provisions of
Section 11 of the Act as well as the Rules framed therein, were
not followed either in letter or spirit. He submitted that the
findings returned to this effect by the Authority were correct
findings and there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with
the same. He submitted that there are no resignations on
record by the Members as alleged. The records were fabricated
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
17
2025:HHC:25335
by the Secretary of the Society. New Members were added
illegally. The authorities rightly took cognizance of the complaint
as grave illegalities were committed by the General Secretary
.
in connivance with few others.
10. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterated his submissions and submitted that the impugned
order was per se perverse and not sustainable.
11. The moot issue before this Court is as to whether
the findings returned by Secretary Co-operation to the effect
that the area of operation of the Society was village Shamti-
Shamlech and there was no deemed amendment of the
extension of the area of the Society and the election dated
14.12.2018 was on basis of an illegal voter list, are sustainable
in the eyes of law or not.
12. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is
necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the H.P. Co-
operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the
1968 Act”). The 1968 Act provides for amendment of the Bye-
laws of a Co-operative Society in terms of the provision of
Section 11 thereof. This provision reads as under:-
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
18
2025:HHC:25335
“11. Amendment of bye-laws of a co-operativesociety:-
(1) No amendment of any by-laws of a Co-
.
operative Society shall be valid unless approved by
the resolution of a general meeting and registered
under this Act for which purpose three copies of the
amendment shall be forwarded to the Registrar as
prescribed.
(2)
If the Registrar is satisfied that the proposed
amendment-
(i) is not contrary to the provisions of this Act
and the Rules,
(ii) does not conflict with co-operative
principles,
(iii) will promote the economic or social
interest of the members of the society,
(iv) is not inconsistent with the principles of
social justice, he may register the
amendment.
(3) When the Registrar registers an amendment,
he shall forward to the society a copy of the
registered amendment together with a certificate
signed by him and such certificate shall be
conclusive evidence that the amendment has been
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
19
2025:HHC:25335
duly registered.
(4) Where the Registrar refuses to register an
amendment of the bye-laws, of a co-operative
.
society, thereof he shall communicate the order of
refusal together with the reasons to the society.
(5) Any amendment which is not disposed of by
the Registrar within 90 days of its receipt, shall be
deemed to have been registered under this Act and
the provisions of sub-section (3) of this section shall
apply to such amendment.
(6) An amendment of the bye-laws of a co-
operative society shall, unless it is expressed to
come into operation on a particular day, come into
force on the day on which it is registered.”
13. This Court firstly shall deal with the issue of the
extension of the area of the Society by way of amendment in
the Bye-laws, i.e., whether the By-laws of the Cooperative
Society were amended in accordance with law, so as to extend
the area of operation of the Society or not.
14. In terms of Section 11 of the 1968 Act, for an
amendment in the Bye-laws to be valid, the same has to be
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
20
2025:HHC:25335
approved by the resolution of a General House and registered
under the 1968 Act, for which purpose, three copies of the
amendment shall be forwarded to the Registrar as
.
prescribed. Sub-Clause (5) of Section 11 of the 1968 Act
provides that any amendment which is not disposed of by the
Registrar within 90 days of its receipt, shall be deemed to have
been registered under the 1968 Act and the provisions of sub-
Section (3) shall apply to such amendments. However, it has to
be appreciated that for sub-Section (5) of Section 11 of the
1968 Act to come into picture, there has to be a compliance of
sub-Section (1) of Section 11 of the 1968 Act in letter and spirit.
15. Section 11, as quoted hereinabove of the 1968 Act,
deals with the amendment of Bye-laws of a Cooperative
Society. Rule-8 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies
Rules, 1971 prescribes the procedure to be followed for
amendment of Bye-laws of a Society. Rule-8 of the said Rules
is quoted hereinbelow:-
“8. Procedure to be followed for amendment of the
bye-laws of a society –
(1) Bye-laws may be made, altered or
abrogated by a resolution passed at a
general meeting of the society:
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
21
2025:HHC:25335
Provided that :-
(a) due notice of any proposal to make,
alter or abrogate the bye-laws is
given to all the members in.
accordance with the bye-laws;
(b) the resolution is passed by not less
than two – thirds of the members
present at the general meeting at
which quorum shall be present as
per rule 30;
(c) a copy of existing bye-laws indicating
the alterations proposed to be made,
and three copies of the proposed
amendments signed by two officers
r of the society, duly authorised, in this
behalf are submitted to the Registrar
with the copy of the resolution
accompanied by :-
(i) a statement of the Secretary of the
society that the provisions of clauses
(a) and (b) above have been fully
complied with :-
(ii) an application from the Secretary
that the change in the bye-laws be
registered.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
rule (1) above, the State Government by a
general or special order in writing, may alter
or modify the conditions laid down above in
respect of secondary societies and
financing banks.
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
22
2025:HHC:25335
The rule specifically provides for a due
notice of proposal to amend bye-laws to all the
members of the society. Every resolution
concerning amendment of bye-laws shall have to
.
be carried out by not less than two-thirds of the
members present in the general meeting,
convened for the purpose.
Under the rule application for registration of
amendment shall be made by the Secretary to the
Registrar. The application shall also be
accompanied by the following documents :-
1. a copy of the existing bye-laws;
2. three copies of the proposed amendments
which shall be signed by atleast two officers
r of the society duly authorised in this behalfby the general body meeting;
3. registration certificate if the amendments
relate to the change in name or liability ofthe society;
4. certificate to be furnished by the Secretary
of the Society;
(i) that the amendments in the bye-laws
have been made in the general meeting of
the society in which quorum was present or
in an adjourned general meeting of the
society;
(ii) that due notice to al the members alongwith
agena (i.e. amendment of bye-laws) was given.”
16. Thus it is evident from Rule 8 that Bye-laws may be
made, altered or abrogated by a resolution passed by a general
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
23
2025:HHC:25335
meeting of the Society, provided that due notice of any proposal
to make, alter or abrogate the Bye-laws is given to all the
Members in accordance with the Bye-laws and the resolution is
.
passed by not less than 2/3rd of the Members present at the
general meeting at which Coram shall be present as per Rule
30. The Rule further provides that a copy of existing Bye-laws
indicating the alterations proposed to be made and three copies
of the proposed amendments signed by two Officers of the
Society, duly authorized, in this behalf are to be submitted to
the Registrar with the copy of the resolution accompanied by a
statement of the Secretary of the Society that the provisions of
Clauses A and B of Rule 8 (1) of the H.P. Cooperative Societies
Rules, 1971, have been fully complied with and there should
also be an application from the Secretary that the change in the
Bye-laws be registered.
17. In the present case, record demonstrates that this
procedure was not followed at all. A perusal of the resolution of
the General House dated 06.09.2011 demonstrates that in
terms of Resolution No.5, purportedly it was resolved that the
area of operation of Society is to be enhanced up to the entire
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
24
2025:HHC:25335
Tehsil Solan and the same was approved with majority. This
resolution is appended with the petition as Annexure P-8.
Annexure P-9 is the communication which has been sent by Mr.
.
Raghuvinder Singh Mehta to Assistant Registrar, Solan on the
subject “to extend area operation of Mehta Cooperative
Transport Society” in which it was stated that the General
House of the Society has been conducted on 06.09.2011 and
in that meeting vide Resolution No.5, it was held by the majority
of the Members of the Society that the area of the Society may
be extended up to Tehsil Solan, District Solan, instead of
Shamti and Shamlech and an addition in the Bye-laws of the
Society may kindly be done.
18. This Court is of the considered view that this is no
compliance of Section 11 of the 1968 Act and Rule-8 of the H.P.
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971. In terms of Section 11 and
Rule 8, the proposed Bye-law has to be approved in the
manner provided in the Act and the Rules and, thereafter, a
copy of the existing Bye-laws, indicating the alterations
proposed to be made and three copies of the proposed
amendments signed by two Officers of the Society duly
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
25
2025:HHC:25335
authorized in this behalf, are to be submitted to the Registrar
with the copy of the resolution accompanied by a statement of
the Secretary of the Society that the provisions of Clauses A
.
and B of Rule 8 (1), have been complied with as well as an
application from the Secretary that change in the Bye-laws be
registered.
19. In the present case, nothing as mentioned
hereinabove was done. There was no compliance of Rule 8(1)
(c) and in fact this provision of the said Rule was violated with
impunity. A simple letter i.e. Annexure P-10, appended with the
petition, did not amount to carrying out a valid amendment in
the Bye-laws of the Cooperative Society. That being the case,
the provision of sub-Section (5) of Section 11 of the 1968 Act
obviously was not attracted in the present case, because when
the procedure prescribed for carrying out amendment was not
followed in letter and spirit, obviously, there was no proposal for
amending the Bye-law before the Registrar and, thus, there
was nothing which was to be disposed of by the Registrar
within 90 days of its receipt.
20. Therefore, the findings returned by the Secretary,
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
26
2025:HHC:25335
Corporation that there was no extension in the area of the
operation of the Cooperative Society and no valid amendment
was carried out in the Bye-laws, are correct findings because
.
the Bye-laws in existence were not amended at all, on the basis
of Resolution No.5 of the General House of the Society dated
06.09.2011, meaning thereby, that the area of the operation of
the Society remained as it was in the original Bye-laws i.e.
Shamti-Shamlech.
21. Now coming to the second issue, the Resolution in
terms whereof, purportedly some of the private respondents
herein, resigned from the Society i.e. Resolution dated
15.06.2016, Annexure P-12, demonstrates that on 15.06.2016,
five resolutions were passed. However, whereas, first three
resolutions were hand written by way of normal spacing
between the lines of the resolutions, fourth and fifth resolutions
were squeezed in the area left in between the space where the
third resolution ended and where the page ended. Why so?
The answer is obvious that this was way of interpolation by
adding into this resolution something which was originally not
resolved therein. This is evident from the fact that in terms of
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
27
2025:HHC:25335
the fourth purported resolution, Members of the Society namely
Ruby, Mahinder, Nirja, Asha, Sameeta, Sonakshi and
Meenakshi, expressed their desire to be Members till
.
31.03.2017 only and, thereafter, they requested that their
membership should be ended and this request of theirs was
accepted by the General House. Not only this, in terms of
Resolution No.5, new Members Balram, Diwan, Rachna, were
purportedly made Members with effect from 16.04.2017. Now
incidentally, these persons who were made Members, were
from areas outside the original area of the operation of the
Society. In fact, the Society could not have enrolled any person
as a Member of the Society, who was not a resident of the
original area of operation of the Society and who was not
enrolled as a Member in consonance with the provisions of the
Bye-laws of the Society. In fact, it is not understood that after
the first three resolutions were reduced into writing, what
transpired so as to lead to a situation that a fourth resolution
was purportedly passed, in which seven Members expressed
their desire to suddenly give up their membership. There is no
resignation of theirs on record. The procedure prescribed for
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
28
2025:HHC:25335
quitting the membership in the Bye-laws was not followed. In a
hush-hush manner, certain new Members were introduced
without any application of theirs being there, to be included as
.
Members. All this shrouds Resolutions No.4 & 5 with doubt and
suspicion.
22. As I have already observed hereinabove, there is a
very serious doubt with regard to the authenticity of this
Resolutions No.4 and 5, because it is not understood as to
what was the necessity of squeezing these two resolutions in
between the space that was available after third resolution
ended at the end of the page. This obviously appears to be an
act of interpolation in the record and apparently the record was
forged to demonstrate that certain Members had voluntarily
resigned. As already observed, there is no resignation on
record of either of these Members and said Members have
denied that they ever resigned.
23. Resolution dated 15.06.2016, as appended with the
petition as Annexure P-12, is being photocopied hereinbelow, to
demonstrate what has been observed by me hereinabove:-
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
29
2025:HHC:25335
.
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
30
2025:HHC:25335
.
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
31
2025:HHC:25335
24. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the Bye-laws of
the Society, which are appended with the petition as Annexure
P-3. Bye-law-7 onwards of the said Bye-laws deals with the
.
mode and manner in which a person can be admitted as a
Member and obviously same was not followed while admitting
certain Members in terms of Resolution dated 15.06.2016.
Besides this, otherwise also, these persons could not have
been included as Members for the reason that they were not
from the original area of operation of the Society.
25. Bye-law-14 of the Society provides that how a
person shall cease to be a Member of the Society and Bye-law
14 reads as under:-
“14. A person shall cease to be a member of the society
in one of the more of the following circumstances:-
(i) death;
(ii) ceasing to hold atleast one share;
(iii) withdrawal after six months notice to the
Secretary of the society provided that theshare/shares held by the member are disposed of in
accordance with bye-law 11 and 12;
(iv) permanent insanity;
(v) declaration of bankruptcy;”
26. Thus, a Member, inter alia, can cease to be so after
issuance of a notice to the Secretary by giving a notice of 6
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
32
2025:HHC:25335
months and despite the fact that this was the condition of the
Bye-law-14, by way of an interpolation in the Resolution dated
15.06.2016, it was made to look as if certain Members had
.
voluntarily resigned from their membership without complying
with the formalities of Bye-law 14. This obviously makes the
entire process suspicious, as has been observed by the
Secretary, Cooperation also.
27. As this Court has held that there was no
enlargement of the original area of operation of the Society
because the original Bye-laws of the Society were never
amended in accordance with law, obviously, the subsequent
elections which were held on the basis of the votes of the
persons who were wrongly and illegally made Members of the
Society, were no elections in the eyes of law and holding of the
said elections to be bad by the Secretary, Cooperation, cannot
be said to be perversity.
28. Therefore, this Court holds that the findings
returned by the Secretary, Cooperation on the counts, on which
said Authority was directed by this Court to return findings, are
correct findings, which are duly borne out from the record of the
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
33
2025:HHC:25335
case.
29. This Court would like to make an observation with
regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
.
that the complaint filed by the complainant was not a proper
complaint as it was not in consonance with the provisions of the
Act. In the light of the perversities which have been found in the
functioning of the Society and the manner in which the affairs
thereof have been dealt with by the Office bearers, taking
cognizance of the complaint revealing such illegalities, cannot
be faulted with at all because during the course of the
arguments of this case, petitioners could not demonstrate that
the findings returned by the Secretary, Corporation, were
perverse and contrary to record. It is clearly borne out that
Secretary, Corporation, has returned the findings which are
strictly based on the record and which are clearly borne out
from the record and which demonstrate that the Office bearers
of the petitioner-Society, who had filed this writ petition, in fact,
were manipulating the affairs of the Society, obviously, with an
ulterior motive.
30. Accordingly, in the light of the observations made
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS
34
2025:HHC:25335
hereinabove, as this Court finds no merit in the petition, the
same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
.
CWP No. 10551 of 2024
31. This petition is disposed of in the light of the
judgment of even date, in CWP No. 4548 of 2024.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 30, 2025
(Shivank Thakur)
::: Downloaded on – 22/08/2025 22:50:28 :::CIS