Interim Committee Cannot Induct New Society Members, the Allahabad High Court has held, ruling that a stop-gap body appointed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act has no power to enrol or remove members of a cooperative society.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order of the Additional Registrar, Lucknow, that gave effect to a resolution of an Interim Committee of Management removing 22 members of a cooperative housing society and seeking to induct 13 new ones, holding that such a resolution is a nullity and the Registrar could not ratify it under Section 128 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 [Srinagar Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla partly allowed the writ petition. The judgment was authored by Justice Shukla. The Bench left it open to the competent authority to pass a fresh order under Section 128, without acting on the Interim Committee’s resolution.
The case
The petitioner is a primary housing cooperative society whose last Committee of Management election was held in 2021. On 10 March 2026, the Additional Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar, Lucknow, appointed an Interim Committee under Section 29(4-B) of the Act. The appointing order itself barred the committee from inducting or removing members of the General Body.
On 21 July 2026, the Interim Committee passed a resolution to remove 22 members enrolled in 2022 and sought permission to induct 13 new members. On 27 August 2026, the Additional Registrar acted on that resolution and declared the appointment of the Society’s Secretary void. The Society and its Secretary challenged that order in a writ petition.
Contentions
The petitioners argued that an Interim Committee is a stop-gap arrangement without any such power and that no ground under Section 128 was made out. The counsel for the respondents ultimately conceded that the Interim Committee lacked the power and that its resolution should not have been acted upon.
What the Court said
The Bench framed the point for determination as whether an Interim Committee appointed under Section 29(4-B) can remove existing members or enrol new ones. Noting that such a committee works subject to the Registrar’s directions, the Court held:
The Interim Committee had no jurisdiction or authority to induct new members or remove existing members.
It added that the resolution “was a nullity in the eyes of law” and described the nature of the body in these words:
An interim committee is only a temporary arrangement for managing the routine affairs of the Society.
On the Registrar’s power under Section 128, the Court said that annulment does not amount to ratification. Because the Registrar had himself barred any change in membership, giving effect to the removal resolution was “beyond the competence and powers of the Registrar in terms of section 128”, the Court held.
The directions
The Court quashed the order dated 27 August 2026 as unsustainable. It permitted the competent authority to pass a fresh order under Section 128, but directed that it “shall not act upon or give effect to any resolution passed by the Interim Committee of Management”. The prayer that the second petitioner be allowed to continue as Secretary was refused because the Interim Committee is currently functional. There was no order as to costs.
Why the order matters
The ruling draws a clear line between routine administration and decisions that alter the membership of a society. An Interim Committee under Section 29(4-B) holds the fort until an elected body is in place; it cannot reshape the General Body that elects that body.
It also limits the Registrar. Section 128 allows annulment of a resolution, but the Court held that it does not allow an authority to adopt and enforce a resolution that the committee had no power to pass.
Case Title: Srinagar Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others [Writ-C No. 38135 of 2026]
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
Appearances: H.R. Misra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Swatantra Pratap Singh (petitioners); Ravi Anand Agarwal (respondents nos. 2 and 3); Dev Kant Trigunait (respondents nos. 4, 5 and 6); Ashish Mishra (intervener); Raj Lakshmi Sinha, Standing Counsel (State)