[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
8 April vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 8 April, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:2477
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 789 of 2026
08 April, 2026
Virender Pokhriyal & another
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
With
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.799 of 2026
Rakesh Kukretri
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.800 of 2026
Pushpa Tyagi --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shobhit Sahaira, learned counsel for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
These writ petitions have been filed by the
petitioners, who are members of a Primary Cooperative
Society as well as members of the Central Cooperative
Society, namely Doon Cooperative Stores Limited and
Mahadev Avasiy Sahkari Samiti. The petitioners are aggrieved
by the impugned order dated 17.03.2026, Annexure-11 to the
petition, as well as the orders dated 01.01.2026 (annexure5
to the writ petition) and 05.01.2026 (annexure-6 to the writ
2026:UHC:2477
petition), whereby the Additional Registrar, Cooperative
Society, directed the ADCOs to conduct an inquiry under
Section 66 of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act,
2003 (for short, "the Act, 2003") for taking action for winding
up against the primary society as well as the central society,
namely Doon Cooperative Stores Limited and Mahadev Avasiy
Sahkari Samiti.
2. The action has been challenged by the petitioners
on the premise that on 10.03.2026, the election programme
for the cooperative societies in the State has been notified,
therefore, the exercise undertaken by the respondents is bad
and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners' society.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners' society will not get an
opportunity of hearing under Section 69 of the Act, 2003
before the winding up proceedings, therefore, such an action
cannot sustain in law.
4. This Court, vide order dated 01.04.2026, called for
instructions from the learned State Counsel to submit before
this Court as to whether apprehension of the petitioners that
they would not get opportunity of hearing under Section 69 of
the Act, 2003 is correct or not.
5. Instructions dated 04.04.2026 have been
produced by the learned State Counsel, which are taken on
record. In the instructions, it has been unequivocally stated
that the provisions of Section 69 of the Act, 2003 are not
attracted; rather, before proceeding further with the winding
up of the petitioners' society under Section 72 of the Act,
2003, Sub-section (2) of Section 72 itself provides an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners' society. Therefore,
the apprehension of the petitioners is misconceived.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
2026:UHC:2477
having perused the provisions of Section 69 of the Act, 2003,
this Court is of the opinion that the inquiry is contemplated
in an audit held under Section 64 of the Act, 2003, and not in
a case where inquiry is being conducted for the purpose of
winding up of the society.
7. Sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Act, 2003
speaks unequivocally that the Registrar may, of his own
motion and after giving such notice as may be prescribed,
pass an order of winding up of a cooperative society. In such
view of the matter, no interference is warranted. All the writ
petitions are misconceived and are accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
08.04.2026
AK
