[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2182/2019 on 24 February, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:1250
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/2182/2019
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for
the petitioner.
2. Mr. Rahul Verma, Additional
Advocate General and Mr. N.K. Papnoi,
Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for
respondent nos. 4 & 5.
4. Petitioner was engaged on daily
wages for 89 days in a Primary
Agricultural Cooperative Society in
District Haridwar. His engagement was
extended for another 89 days and
thereafter his services were regularised
on the post of Clerk by the Society.
Subsequently, the order of
regularisation passed in favour of the
petitioner was cancelled by the new
incumbent on the post of Chairman of
the Cooperative Society, vide order
dated 10.07.2019. Thus, feeling
aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ
petition challenging the order dated
10.07.2019.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Co-operative
Societies reported as (2006) 11 SCC
634 has held as under:-
"10. It has not been shown before us that the
State exercises any direct or indirect control over the
affairs of the Society for deep and pervasive control.
The State furthermore is not the majority shareholder.
The State has the power only to nominate one
2026:UHC:1250
Director. It cannot, thus, be said that the State
exercises any functional control over the affairs of the
Society in the sense that the majority Directors are
nominated by the State. For arriving at the conclusion
that the State has a deep and pervasive control over
the Society, several other relevant questions are
required to be considered, namely, (1) How was the
Society created? (2) Whether it enjoys any monopoly
character? (3) Do the functions of the Society partake
to statutory functions or public functions? and (4) Can
it be characterised as public authority?
11. Respondent 2, the Society does not answer any
of the aforementioned tests. In the case of a non-
statutory society, the control thereover would mean
that the same satisfies the tests laid down by this
Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981)
1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] . [See Zoroastrian
Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Distt. Registrar, Coop.
Societies (Urban) [(2005) 5 SCC 632] .]
14. As Respondent 1 does not satisfy any of the
tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas [(2002) 5
SCC 111 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 633] we are of the opinion
that the High Court cannot be said to have committed
any error in arriving at a finding that the respondent
Bank is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India..
17. It is, therefore, evident that in Ram Sahan
Rai [(2001) 3 SCC 323 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 584] also the
cooperative society was held to be established under a
statute. We may notice that in Nayagarh Coop. Central
Bank Ltd. v. Narayan Rath [(1977) 3 SCC 576 : 1977
SCC (L&S) 532] this Court was of the opinion that:
(SCC p. 578, para 5)
"5. The High Court has dealt with the question
whether a writ petition can be maintained against a
cooperative society, but we are inclined to the view
that the observations made by the High Court and
its decision that such a writ petition is maintainable
are not strictly in accordance with the decisions of
this Court. We would have liked to go into the
question for ourselves, but it is unnecessary to do
so as Respondent 1 by his writ petition, was asking
for relief not really against a cooperative society
but in regard to the order which was passed by the
Registrar, who was acting as a statutory authority
in the purported exercise of powers conferred on
him by the Cooperative Societies Act. The writ
petition was in that view maintainable.""
6. Admittedly, petitioner was
engaged by a Primary Co-operative
Society, which does not receive any
financial aid from Central or State
Government. By applying the tests laid
down in the case of Pradeep Kumar
2026:UHC:1250
Biswas (2002) 5 SCC 111, this Court
finds that the Co-operative Society
concerned do not qualify to be State
under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Thus, the relief sought by the petitioner
cannot be granted by this Court under
its writ jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
prays that petitioner be permitted to
approach the Registrar, by making
representation.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly,
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
to make representation to the Registrar.
If such representation is made within
two weeks from today, decision
thereupon shall be taken by the
Registrar, as per law, within six weeks
thereafter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
24.02.2026
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb
CHANDRA
4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653
D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2026.02.26 09:40:38 +05'30'
