Uttarakhand High Court
Govind Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 8 July, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
UKHC010109292026
2026:UHC:5525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1941 of 2026
Govind Singh Bisht ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ... Respondents
Mr. Ravindra Garia, Advocate, i/b Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Deputy AG, for the State.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate, for the respondent no. 5 and 7.
Ms. Ruchika Negi, Advocate, i/b Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for
the respondent no. 6.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Petitioner is member of a Primary
Cooperative Society and he claims to be elected as
Delegate to represent the society in the Electoral
College constituted for holding election to
reconstitute Committee of Management of a Central
Society, namely, Nainital District Cooperative Bank
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’).
Petitioner is challenging order dated 9.6.2026,
passed by Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Uttarakhand. By the said order, an officer of
Cooperative Department holding the position of
Joint Registrar, was appointed as Administrator to
look after the affairs of the Bank. Perusal of said
order indicates that the officer, who is now
appointed as Administrator, will replace the Chief
Development Officer, Nainital, as he is not able to
1
UKHC010109292026
2026:UHC:5525
devote sufficient time to manage affairs of the
Bank.
2. It is the contention of petitioner that term
of the elected Committee of Management of the
Bank came to an end on 10.12.2023 and Chief
Development Officer, Nainital was appointed as
Administrator, vide order dated 11.12.2023.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in
view of provision contained in Section 29(7) of
Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act,
Administrator cannot hold office beyond one year
and six months from the date he is appointed. He
further submits that Section 29(7) of the Act
ordains that election for reconstituting Committee
of Management has to be held within one and half
years, which is a mandatory provision, therefore
the impugned order, whereby another
Administrator has been appointed after expiry of
one and half years, is patently illegal. Learned
Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Section
35(3) and 35(7) of the aforesaid Act, which are
extracted below:
“35(3) Where the Registrar has
superseded the Committee of Management under
sub-section (1), he may appoint in its place, (for a
period not exceeding six months) to be specified in
the order of supersession:
(a) a new committee consisting of one or
more members of the society;
(b) an administrator or administrators
who need not necessarily be members of the
society:
Provided that the Registrar may, with the
previous approval of the State Government extend
the period of supersession, so however, that any2
UKHC0101092920262026:UHC:5525
single extension does not exceed six months and
the total extension does not exceed one year:
Provided further that the committee or an
administrator or administrators appointed (before
the commencement of Uttarakhand Cooperative
Societies Act 2003) shall be deemed to have been
duly appointed and no action taken or power
exercised or functions performed by it or him, as
the case may be, shall be deemed to be invalid or
shall be called in question in any court on the
ground of any defect in its or his appointment as
such or on the ground that the Committee of
Management was not reconstituted within time or
the period of supersession or the term its or his
office was not duly extended.
35(7) The provisions of Section 29 shall
apply in respect of reconstitution of the Committee
of Management under this section.”
3. Per contra, learned State Counsel refers
to Section 29(5)(b) and Section 114 of the
aforesaid Act, which are extracted below:
“29(5)(b) On or as soon as may be after
the expiry of such term, the Registrar shall appoint
an Administrator or a Committee of Administrators
(hereinafter, in this section, referred to as the
Committee) for the management of the affairs of
the society until the reconstitution of the
Committee of Management in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws of
the society, and the Registrar shall have the power
to change the Administrator or, as the case may
be, any member of the Committee or to appoint a
Committee in place of an Administrator or vice
versa from time to time.
114. Act of co-operative societies not
be invalidated by certain defects.–No Act of a
co-operative society or any Committee of
Management or of any officer of a co-operative
society shall be deemed to be invalid by reason
only of the existence of any defect in the
constitution of such society or committee or in the
appointment or election of such an officer or on the3
UKHC0101092920262026:UHC:5525
ground that such officer was disqualified for such
appointment or election.
4. Clause (a) of sub-section 5 of Section 29
of the Act provides that the Committee of
Management of a Cooperative Society shall cease
to exist immediately upon expiry of the term, for
which it was elected. Clause (b) of sub-section 5 of
Section 29, enables the Registrar to appoint an
Administrator or a Committee of Administrators for
managing the affairs of the society till
reconstitution of the Committee of Management. It
also enables the Registrar to change the
Administrator or, as the case may be, any member
of the Committee from time to time. There is no
outer limit prescribed in Clause (b) of sub-section 5
of Section 29, as regards the term of the
Administrator, and this provision indicates that
Administrator appointed under Clause (b) of sub-
section 5 shall continue to manage the affairs of the
Society till the Committee of Management is re-
elected as per the provisions of the Act and the
Rules.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies
upon sub-section (7) of Section 29 of the Act for
contending that upon expiry of one and half years,
Administrator cannot manage the affairs of the
Society. However, careful perusal of sub-section (7)
of Section 29, which is extracted below, does not
support the contention raised by the petitioner, as
it merely provides that the Administrator or the
Committee appointed under sub-section (5) shall
4
UKHC010109292026
2026:UHC:5525
arrange for reconstituting the Committee of
Management within one year and six months of
his/its appointment. However the consequence of
not holding election within prescribed period of one
and half years is not indicated in the statute. Sub-
section (7) of Section 29 nowhere provides that the
Administrator cannot manage the affairs of the
Society beyond one and half years.
“29(7) The Administrator or the
Committee, as the case may be, appointed under
sub-section (5), shall as soon as may be, but not
later than the expiry of one year and six months
from the date of appointment, arrange for the
reconstitution of the Committee of Management in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules
and the bye-laws of the society to take over the
management of the society from the Administrator
or the Committee, as the case may be;
Provided that where an Administrator is
replaced by a Committee or a Committee by an
Administrator as provided in clause (b) of sub-
section (5), the period of one year and six months
shall count from the date the Administrator or the
Committee, as the case may be was originally
appointed.”
6. Learned Counsel for the parties are
unanimous on the point that the election schedule
has been published and election process would
commence on 3.8.2026.
7. The challenge thrown to the order dated
9.6.2026, based on sub-section (7) of Section 29 of
the Act, cannot be sustained, as sub-section (7) of
Section 29 nowhere restricts the power of
Registrar, conferred by sub-section (5)(b) of
Section 29, to appoint Administrator and sub-
5
UKHC010109292026
2026:UHC:5525
section (5)(b) does not contain any limitation as
regards duration.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also
referred to Section 35(3) and 35(7) of the Act.
Section 35(3) has no application to the facts of the
case, as it deals with a case where a Committee of
Management is superseded by the Registrar.
Section 35(7) of the Act also does not support the
petitioner for challenging the impugned order, as it
merely provides that provisions of Section 29 shall
apply for reconstituting the Committee of
Management.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no
scope for interference with the impugned order.
Writ petition thus fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
8.7.2026
Pr
PRABODH Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
KUMAR
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91
957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2026.07.09 19:54:53 +05’30’
6
