The Allahabad High Court has held that only the District Magistrate, as the specified authority under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968, can convene a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against the Chairman of a cooperative society, and that the power cannot be passed down to subordinate officers.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has quashed the resolution removing the Chairman of a primary agricultural cooperative society at Khajuri, Meerut, after finding that the no-confidence meeting was convened by an officer other than the District Magistrate, was held on less than 21 clear days’ notice and was presided over by an officer of the Cooperative Department, and has allowed the directors to move a fresh requisition in accordance with law [Rajeshwar v. State of U.P. & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla decided the two connected writ petitions, with the judgment authored by Justice Shukla.
Background
The petitioner, Rajeshwar, was elected Chairman of the Bahu-uddeshiya Prathmik Gramin Sahkari Samiti Limited, Khajuri, Block Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, in 2023. On September 16, 2025, nine directors submitted a written requisition to the District Magistrate seeking a no-confidence motion against him.
The requisition was passed on within the Collectorate: the In-charge Officer delegated it to the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, who directed the Additional District Cooperative Officer to convene the meeting. The meeting was held on October 6, 2025, the motion was carried unanimously and the petitioner was removed. An Acting Chairman was appointed.
When the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Meerut, declined to operate the society’s account in the old manner, a second writ petition followed, and the two matters were heard together. The petitioner challenged the resolution and the consequential orders.
Only the District Magistrate can convene the meeting
Rule 465 names the District Magistrate of the district where the society’s headquarters is situated as the specified authority for the purposes of Part VII of the Rules, which governs the removal of a Chairman or Vice-Chairman by no-confidence. The High Court held:
“Since the District Magistrate is the specified authority under the rule, therefore none other than the District Magistrate is competent to convene the meeting of no-confidence by fixing a date, time and place.”
Applying the maxim delegatus non potest delegare and relying on Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, the Court found the successive hand-down of the power, from the District Magistrate to the Assistant Registrar and then to the Additional District Cooperative Officer, contrary to the statutory scheme. It observed:
“When a discretionary power is vested in a particular authority, it must ordinarily be exercised by that authority and cannot be passed on to another person merely for administrative convenience, unless the law permits such delegation.”
The Bench also recorded that, in terms of the decisions in Gyan Singh v. D.M. Bijnor and Phula Devi v. State of U.P., Part VII is mandatory except as to the manner in which notice is sent.
Twenty-one clear days’ notice
The second proviso to Rule 458(1) provides that “at least twenty-one days notice shall be given for holding such meeting.” Reading ‘at least’ as ‘not less than’, the High Court held:
“The period of 21 days is the minimum period required for a gap between the date of the notice and the holding of the meeting. This period cannot be shrunk by any mathematical operation or legal interpretation as it would negate the very purpose of the Rules.”
Excluding both terminal days, only nineteen clear days intervened between September 16, 2025 and the meeting held on October 6, 2025, which the Court held fell short of the mandatory requirement.
Presiding Officer under Rule 459
Rule 459 requires the specified authority to nominate a Gazetted Government servant, other than an officer of the department concerned with the supervision and administration of the society, as Presiding Officer. The High Court held:
“The meeting of the Committee of Management, having been presided over by the Additional District Cooperative Officer, an officer of the Cooperative Department, was contrary to the statutory mandate contained in Rule 459.”
Directions
The High Court quashed the resolution of October 6, 2025 removing the petitioner and the consequential appointment of the Acting Chairman. It also quashed the order of August 19, 2026 passed by the Branch Manager of the bank, holding that it had lost its foundation. The Bench added:
“It shall be open to the members/directors, in case they still intend to move the no-confidence motion, to do so by way of a fresh requisition in accordance with law and in conformity with Part VII of the Rules, 1968, by adhering to the time schedule.”
The second writ petition, concerning the operation of the bank account, was consigned to records as nothing survived for adjudication. No order as to costs was made.
Why The Allahabad High Court Judgment Matters
The ruling treats the procedure in Part VII of the 1968 Rules as a set of statutory conditions that must each be met before a Chairman can be removed, rather than as formalities. A meeting convened by an officer who does not hold the power is, in the Court’s words, without jurisdiction, and the removal falls with it.
The decision does not decide whether the directors had lost confidence in the Chairman. It leaves them free to start again through a fresh requisition to the District Magistrate, on the full notice period and with a Presiding Officer from outside the Cooperative Department.
Case Title: Rajeshwar v. State of U.P. & Ors. [WRIT-C No. 34885 of 2026, with WRIT-C No. 1256 of 2026]
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, Allahabad High Court
Date of Judgment: September 17, 2026
Appearances: H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, with Abhishek Mishra and Shivoham Mishra, for the petitioner; the Chief Standing Counsel, Mahesh Narayan Mishra, Satyam Singh, Sujeet Kumar Rai and Roopesh Tiwari for the respondents