Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 216
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8743 OF 2013
REGISTRAR CANE COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
GURDEEP SINGH NARVAL (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8746 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8745 OF 2013
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8744 OF 2013
J U D G M E N T
ALOK ARADHE, J.
1. These batch of appeals raise an important question regarding
legal status of two Sugarcane Cooperative Societies on
bifurcation of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and interplay
between Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Reorganisation
Act) and Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (2002 Act).
The core issue is whether Sugarcane Growers Cooperative
Signature Not Verified
Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur, situated in Udham Singh
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.03.10
18:03:56 IST
Reason:
Nagar, District of Uttarakhand could be treated as Multi-State
1
Cooperative Societies by operation of Section 103 of 2002 Act,
despite their prior reorganisation and confinement of their area
of operations to a single State, under the statutory framework
governing State reorganisation.
2. For the facility of reference, facts from C.A. No.8743 of 2013 are
being referred to. Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society,
Bajpur (Society) is a Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society
whose area of operation originally included 96 villages in Bajpur
and 34 villages in Suar, District Rampur in the erstwhile State of
Uttar Pradesh. The Society was registered under the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (1965 Act). The Registrar, Cane
Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, on 10.07.1998 passed an
order superseding the managing committee of the society. The
District Cane Officer, Udham Singh Nagar assumed the charge
of the society, as its administrator.
3. The Parliament enacted the Reorganisation Act, by which the
State of Uttaranchal (‘now Uttarakhand’) was created with effect
from 09.11.2000. On reorganisation of the State of Uttar
Pradesh, 34 Revenue Villages, including village Suar, fell into
the territory of the successor State of Uttar Pradesh and the
villages of Tehsil Bajpur fell into the successor State of
2
Uttaranchal. Thus, the area of operation of society spanned over
the two states, namely State of U.P. and State of Uttarakhand.
4. A meeting between the officers of State of U.P. and Officers of
State of Uttaranchal was convened on 08.02.2001, in which it
was decided that in respect of the societies which have
assumed the status of a multi-state cooperative society, a
meeting of General Body shall be convened for reconstitution of
such societies and with consent of both the States, the proposal
shall be sent for their reorganization to the Central Registrar,
Multi-State Cooperative Societies. Accordingly, a meeting of the
General Body of the Society was convened on 03.04.2001 in
which unanimously a resolution for reorganisation of the Society
was passed. The Cane Commissioner/Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Uttar Pradesh on 03.11.2001 made appropriate
amendments in bye-law no.3 of the Society.
5. The Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad by an order dated
14.05.2002 directed deletion of names of 34 villages including
the village Suar in District Rampur, from the area of operation of
the society and ordered inclusion of the said villages in
Sugarcane Cooperative Society Ltd. Suar, District Rampur, U.P.
Consequently, the area of the operation of the society was
3
curtailed and restricted to the areas which fell in the Territory of
State of Uttaranchal.
6. The respondent No.1’s name, who is a cane grower of village,
Suar, was not included in the list of members of the society. He,
therefore, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was
dismissed on 13.12.2002, on the ground that respondent No.1
has an alternative remedy of arbitration before the Central
Registrar under the 2002 Act. The respondent no.1 thereupon
initiated arbitration proceeding before the Central Registrar
against his exclusion from membership of the society. The sole
arbitrator by an award dated 31.08.2004, held that by virtue of
Section 103 of 2002 Act, the society became a Multi-State
Cooperative Society on 09.11.2000. It was further held that the
meeting of the General Body of the Society dated 03.04.2001
and order dated 14.05.2002 passed by Deputy Cane
Commissioner were illegal and void, and Respondent No.1
continued to be a bona fide member of the society.
7. The Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal, on
17.03.2005, issued a notification initiating the process of
election of the Society, which was challenged by respondent No.1
in a Writ Petition. However, during the pendency of the writ
petition, the Registrar withdrew the aforesaid notification.
4
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with
the liberty to file fresh proceeding, if occasion so arises.
8. The Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal, issued a
fresh notification on 20.07.2006 for election of the Managing
Committee of the Society. The respondent No.1 again
approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. The High
Court, by judgment and order dated 14.03.2007, inter alia , held
that the Society is a Multi-State Cooperative Society under the
2002 Act. Therefore, the notification dated 20.07.2006 issued by
Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal is bad in law.
The High Court directed the Registrar, Multi-State Cooperative
Societies or the nominee of the Government of India to hold
election for Managing Committee of the Societies whose area of
operation fall in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
9. The judgment and order dated 14.03.2007, is challenged by the
State of Uttarakhand and members of Sugarcane Growers
Cooperative Society, Gadarpur, Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand in Civil Appeal Nos. 8743 of 2013, 8745 of 2013
and 8744 of 2013. Civil Appeal No.8746 of 2013, has been filed
by Cane farmers of Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society,
Gadarpur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, against order
dated 05.09.2006 by which Writ Petition, challenging the
5
election conducted by the State of Uttaranchal in respect of their
society, has been dismissed. In the aforesaid factual
background, these appeals arise for our consideration.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.
8743 of 2013, 8745 of 2013 and 8744 of 2013, has invited the
attention of this Court to the provisions of Reorganisation Act
and 2002 Act. It is submitted that Section 103 of 2002 Act, does
not, by itself, confer an automatic or deemed status of a Multi-
State Cooperative Society upon every society registered under
the State Cooperative Societies Act, merely because the parent
State has undergone reorganisation. It is urged that a factual
inquiry is required to be undertaken to determine the
applicability of Section 103 of the 2002 Act. In support of the
aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions
1
of this Court .
11. Learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 8746 of
2013 has contended that by virtue of Section 103(1) of the 2002
Act, the Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society, Gadarpur is
deemed to be a Multi-State Cooperative Society. It is submitted
that the respondents have failed to follow the scheme envisaged
1
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary and Others v. Milkiyat Singh and Others; 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2802
6
under the 2002 Act, and the amendments carried out in bye-
laws of the Society are illegal. In support of the aforesaid
submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this
2
Court .
12. Learned Additional Solicitor General while inviting the attention
of this Court to Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act, has
contended that both the States had already taken necessary
steps to reorganize the Multi-State Cooperative Societies into two
state cooperative societies, within a period of two years,
therefore, the societies shall cease to be Multi-State Cooperative
3
Societies. It is urged that the decision of this Court did not
consider the impact of Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act.
13. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and
have perused the record. At this stage, it is apposite to take note
of the relevant statutory provisions. The Reorganisation Act is a
parliamentary enactment designed to provide for a
comprehensive legal framework governing the territorial,
institutional, administrative and legal consequences arising from
bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. The said Act
came into force w.e.f. 09.11.2000. Section 87 of the
2
Naresh Shankar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. , (2009) 16 SCC 157
3
Naresh Shankar Srivastava (supra)
7
Reorganisation Act provides that the law which was applicable
on the date of bifurcation of State would continue to cover the
successor State i.e., Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) for a period
of two years, as applicable by order, subject to such adaptations
and modifications of the law. This provision embodies the
doctrine of legislative continuity, ensuring that statutory regimes
governing local institutions, including Cooperative Societies,
remain operational until replaced by fresh legislation. Section 87
of the Act is extracted below for the facility of reference: -
“ 87. Power to adapt laws.—
For the purpose of facilitating the application in
relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh or
Uttaranchal of any law made before the appointed
day, the appropriate Government may, before the
expiration of two years from that day, by order,
make such adaptations and modifications of the
law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as
may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon
every such law shall have effect subject to the
adaptations and modifications so made until
altered, repealed or amended by a competent
Legislature or other competent authority.
Explanation.— In this section, the expression
“appropriate Government” means as respects any
law relating to a matter enumerated in the Union
List, the Central Government, and as respects any
other law in its application to a State, the State
Government.”
8
14. Section 93 of the Reorganisation Act provides that provisions of
the said Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Section 93
reads as under: -
“93. Effect of provisions of the Act inconsistent
with other laws. –
The provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law.”
15. The 2002 Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law
relating to cooperative societies, with objects not confined to one
State and serving the interests of members in more than one
State, to facilitate the voluntary formation and democratic
functioning of cooperatives as people’s institutions based on
self-help and mutual aid and to enable them to promote their
economic and social betterment and to provide functional
autonomy. Under the 2002 Act, a Multi-State Cooperative
Society may come into existence either by registration under
Section 5 or by conversion into a Multi-State Cooperative Society
under Section 22 of the 2002 Act. A Multi-State Cooperative
Society may also come into existence by a legal fiction as
provided under Section 103(1) of the 2002 Act. Section 103 of
the 2002 Act deals with cooperative societies functioning
immediately before Reorganisation of States.
9
16. The Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011
incorporated Part IX-B in the Constitution of India, which deals
with provisions relating to cooperative societies. The High Court
th
of Gujarat struck down Part IX-B of the 97 Constitutional
nd
Amendment on 22 April, 2013, on the ground that it required
ratification of the majority of State Legislatures as per Article
368(2) of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, the
Government of India filed a Civil Appeal against this judgment
th
before this Court, which, in its majority judgment dated 20
July, 2021, pronounced that Part IX-B of the Constitution of
India is operative only insofar as it concerns Multi-State
Cooperative Societies both within the various States and in the
Union Territories of India. Therefore, in order to bring the 2002
Act in consonance with Constitution (Ninety-Seventh
Amendment) Act, 2011, to plug loopholes in the existing
legislation and to strengthen the governance of Multi-State
Cooperative Societies, the 2002 Act was amended by Act No.11
of 2023 with effect from 03.08.2023.
17. A proviso to Section 103 was added by Amendment Act No.11 of
2023. The proviso came into force with effect from 03.08.2023.
Section 103(1) as amended by Act No.11 of 2023 is extracted
below for the facility of reference: -
10
“ 103(1) Where, by virtue of the provisions of Part II
of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956)
or any other enactment relating to reorganisation
of states, any cooperative society which
immediately before the day on which the
reorganisation takes place, had its objects confined
to one state becomes, as from that day, a multi-
state cooperative society, it shall be deemed to be a
multi-state cooperative society registered under the
corresponding provisions of this Act and the bye-
laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act,
continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.
[Provided that where all the successor States
take necessary steps to divide or reorganise such
deemed multi-State co-operative society into
State co-operative societies in order to confine
their objects, services and the members to
respective States within a period of three years,
such deemed multi-State cooperative society
shall cease to be a multi-State co-operative
society:
Provided further that the deemed multi-State co-
operative society other than those mentioned in
the first proviso shall submit an application for
registration and obtain the certificate of
registration from the Central Registrar.]”
18. Now, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. In exercise
of powers conferred by Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act,
admittedly the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) adopted
the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. A meeting
between the officers of Uttar Pradesh and Officers of State of
Uttaranchal was convened on 08.02.2001 wherein it was
decided that in respect of Societies which have assumed the
status of Multi-State Cooperative Societies, a meeting of General
11
Body shall be convened for reconstitution of such societies and
with consent of both the States, the proposal shall be sent for
their reorganization to the Central Registrar, Multi-State
Cooperative Societies. A meeting of the General Body of the
Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society, Bajpur was convened
on 03.04.2001 in which a resolution for constituting separate
Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies consisting of 34
villages in Rampur, District of U.P. and 34 villages in Bajpur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, was unanimously passed.
Accordingly, Cane Commissioner/Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Uttar Pradesh on 03.11.2001 made appropriate
amendments to bye-law no.3 of the Society.
19. The Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad, by an order dated
14.05.2002, directed deletion of names of 34 villages including
the village Suar in District Rampur from the area of operation of
the society and ordered inclusion of the said villages in
Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society Ltd. Suar, District
Rampur, U.P. Consequently, the area of the operation of the
society was curtailed and restricted to the areas which fell in the
Territory of State of Uttaranchal.
20. The area of operation of Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society,
Gadarpur, consisted of 102 villages. On bifurcation of the State,
12
9 villages of Suar Tehsil in Rampur continued to be in State of
Uttar Pradesh whereas 93 villages, namely 70 villages of
Gadarpur, 14 villages of Tehsil, Bajpur and 5 villages of Tehsil
Kiccha in Udham Singh Nagar fell in the territory of new State of
Uttaranchal. In pursuance of policy decision taken by officers of
both the States on 08.02.2001, consequential action was taken
by Administrator of the society in presence of general body on
19.04.2003, by which 9 villages of Tehsil Swar District, Rampur
were directed to be deleted and a decision was taken to
reconstitute the Society with remaining 93 villages in the State
of Uttaranchal. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal
passed a consequential order on 01.12.2003, implementing the
deletion of 9 villages from the area of operation of Sugarcane
Growers Cooperative Society, Gadarpur.
21. The 2002 Act came into force w.e.f. 19.08.2002. However, prior
to it, a meeting between the officers of State of Uttar Pradesh
and Uttaranchal was convened on 08.02.2001, wherein decision
was taken to reconstitute and reorganize the societies as their
area of operation fell within the States of Uttar Pradesh and
Uttaranchal. The said action and the consequential action of
reconstitution of the society was taken under the transitional
regime as provided under Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act.
13
22. We may now take note of Section 103 of 2002 Act which
introduces a deeming fiction, whereby certain societies affected
by reorganisation may be treated as Multi-State Cooperative
Societies. It is well settled legal proposition that a legal fiction
must be strictly confined to the purpose for which it is created
and cannot be extended beyond its legitimate field. Legal fictions
are crafted tools, precise in purpose and limited in reach. The
deeming fiction created under Section 103 of the 2002 Act
cannot, in any case be construed in isolation so as to override
the express statutory scheme contained in Reorganisation Act,
which is an enactment governing all legal, administrative and
institutional consequences arising from bifurcation of erstwhile
State of Uttar Pradesh. The Reorganisation Act has also a non-
obstante clause i.e., Section 93. The deeming fiction which
though provides for a contingency on bifurcation of State,
embodied in Section 103 of 2002 Act, did not apply in view of
decision taken for reconstitution of the societies under the
Reorganisation Act.
23. For yet another reason, the Societies cannot be treated as Multi-
4
State Cooperative Societies under the 2002 Act. This Court has
held that deeming fiction under Section 103 of 2002 Act is
4
Milkiyat Singh and Others (supra)
14
neither automatic nor universal, but is conditional upon factual
determination of the objects of the concerned Society and it has
to be ascertained whether the object of such Society extend to
more than one State. This Court emphasised the conceptual
distinction between ‘objects’ and ‘area of operation’ and clarified
that residence of the members or the geographical spread of
activity cannot substitute the statutory requirement that
principal objects must themselves be Multi States in character.
Applying the aforesaid principle to the instant appeals, and on
careful scrutiny of bye-laws, it is evident that the object of the
society are confined to safeguarding and promoting the interests
of local canegrowers and their objects do not evince any
intention to serve the members across the State boundaries.
24. Thus, the statutory scheme and chronology of events leave no
manner of doubt that decisions taken to reorganize the societies
on bifurcation of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh are valid in
view of Sections 87 and 93 of Reorganisation Act. Section 103 of
2002 Act neither operates automatically nor could it
retrospectively invalidate the completed actions undertaken
under the Reorganisation Act. It is a cardinal principle of
interpretation of statutes that provisions contained in two
statutes must be, if possible, interpreted in a harmonious
15
5
manner to give full effect to both the statutes . The overriding
effect of Reorganisation Act and effect of Section 103 of the 2002
Act necessitates a harmonious construction by which operation
of legal fiction has to be restricted, in cases where action for
reorganisation of the Societies has already been taken and in
respect of the Society whose objects and area of operation are
confined to a single State. A deeming provision under Section
103 of 2002 Act cannot unsettle such completed action for
reorganisation, by virtue of Sections 87 and 93 of the
Reorganisation Act. In the absence of multiple State objects in
the bye-laws of the Societies, the same cannot be treated as
Multi-State Cooperative Societies, as statutory pre-conditions for
invoking Section 103 of 2002 Act are absent.
6
25. In so far as, the decision rendered by this Court is concerned,
suffice it to say that the aforesaid decision dealt with provisions
of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and the impact of
Sections 87 and 93 of Reorganisation Act was not considered.
Therefore, the same has no application to these appeals.
5
In re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
Stamp Act, 1899; (2024) 6 SCC 1.
6
Naresh Shankar Srivastava (supra)
16
26. In view of foregoing discussion, we hold that Sugarcane Growers
Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur are not Multi-State
Cooperative Societies under the 2002 Act. The judgment and
order dated 14.03.2007 passed by the High Court is quashed
and set aside. The judgment and order dated 05.09.2006 passed
in C.A. No.8746 of 2013 by High Court is upheld. The
authorities under the State Cooperative law shall take steps to
conduct the elections of the Societies expeditiously.
27. In the result, Civil Appeal Nos. 8743 of 2013, 8744 of 2013 and
8745 of 2013 are allowed, whereas Civil Appeal No. 8746 of
2013 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
..…..…….……………….………….……….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
.……………………………….….……..….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 10, 2026.
17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 216
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8743 OF 2013
REGISTRAR CANE COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
GURDEEP SINGH NARVAL (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8746 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8745 OF 2013
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8744 OF 2013
J U D G M E N T
ALOK ARADHE, J.
1. These batch of appeals raise an important question regarding
legal status of two Sugarcane Cooperative Societies on
bifurcation of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and interplay
between Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Reorganisation
Act) and Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (2002 Act).
The core issue is whether Sugarcane Growers Cooperative
Signature Not Verified
Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur, situated in Udham Singh
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.03.10
18:03:56 IST
Reason:
Nagar, District of Uttarakhand could be treated as Multi-State
1
Cooperative Societies by operation of Section 103 of 2002 Act,
despite their prior reorganisation and confinement of their area
of operations to a single State, under the statutory framework
governing State reorganisation.
2. For the facility of reference, facts from C.A. No.8743 of 2013 are
being referred to. Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society,
Bajpur (Society) is a Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society
whose area of operation originally included 96 villages in Bajpur
and 34 villages in Suar, District Rampur in the erstwhile State of
Uttar Pradesh. The Society was registered under the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (1965 Act). The Registrar, Cane
Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, on 10.07.1998 passed an
order superseding the managing committee of the society. The
District Cane Officer, Udham Singh Nagar assumed the charge
of the society, as its administrator.
3. The Parliament enacted the Reorganisation Act, by which the
State of Uttaranchal (‘now Uttarakhand’) was created with effect
from 09.11.2000. On reorganisation of the State of Uttar
Pradesh, 34 Revenue Villages, including village Suar, fell into
the territory of the successor State of Uttar Pradesh and the
villages of Tehsil Bajpur fell into the successor State of
2
Uttaranchal. Thus, the area of operation of society spanned over
the two states, namely State of U.P. and State of Uttarakhand.
4. A meeting between the officers of State of U.P. and Officers of
State of Uttaranchal was convened on 08.02.2001, in which it
was decided that in respect of the societies which have
assumed the status of a multi-state cooperative society, a
meeting of General Body shall be convened for reconstitution of
such societies and with consent of both the States, the proposal
shall be sent for their reorganization to the Central Registrar,
Multi-State Cooperative Societies. Accordingly, a meeting of the
General Body of the Society was convened on 03.04.2001 in
which unanimously a resolution for reorganisation of the Society
was passed. The Cane Commissioner/Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Uttar Pradesh on 03.11.2001 made appropriate
amendments in bye-law no.3 of the Society.
5. The Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad by an order dated
14.05.2002 directed deletion of names of 34 villages including
the village Suar in District Rampur, from the area of operation of
the society and ordered inclusion of the said villages in
Sugarcane Cooperative Society Ltd. Suar, District Rampur, U.P.
Consequently, the area of the operation of the society was
3
curtailed and restricted to the areas which fell in the Territory of
State of Uttaranchal.
6. The respondent No.1’s name, who is a cane grower of village,
Suar, was not included in the list of members of the society. He,
therefore, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was
dismissed on 13.12.2002, on the ground that respondent No.1
has an alternative remedy of arbitration before the Central
Registrar under the 2002 Act. The respondent no.1 thereupon
initiated arbitration proceeding before the Central Registrar
against his exclusion from membership of the society. The sole
arbitrator by an award dated 31.08.2004, held that by virtue of
Section 103 of 2002 Act, the society became a Multi-State
Cooperative Society on 09.11.2000. It was further held that the
meeting of the General Body of the Society dated 03.04.2001
and order dated 14.05.2002 passed by Deputy Cane
Commissioner were illegal and void, and Respondent No.1
continued to be a bona fide member of the society.
7. The Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal, on
17.03.2005, issued a notification initiating the process of
election of the Society, which was challenged by respondent No.1
in a Writ Petition. However, during the pendency of the writ
petition, the Registrar withdrew the aforesaid notification.
4
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with
the liberty to file fresh proceeding, if occasion so arises.
8. The Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal, issued a
fresh notification on 20.07.2006 for election of the Managing
Committee of the Society. The respondent No.1 again
approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. The High
Court, by judgment and order dated 14.03.2007, inter alia , held
that the Society is a Multi-State Cooperative Society under the
2002 Act. Therefore, the notification dated 20.07.2006 issued by
Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal is bad in law.
The High Court directed the Registrar, Multi-State Cooperative
Societies or the nominee of the Government of India to hold
election for Managing Committee of the Societies whose area of
operation fall in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
9. The judgment and order dated 14.03.2007, is challenged by the
State of Uttarakhand and members of Sugarcane Growers
Cooperative Society, Gadarpur, Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand in Civil Appeal Nos. 8743 of 2013, 8745 of 2013
and 8744 of 2013. Civil Appeal No.8746 of 2013, has been filed
by Cane farmers of Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society,
Gadarpur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, against order
dated 05.09.2006 by which Writ Petition, challenging the
5
election conducted by the State of Uttaranchal in respect of their
society, has been dismissed. In the aforesaid factual
background, these appeals arise for our consideration.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.
8743 of 2013, 8745 of 2013 and 8744 of 2013, has invited the
attention of this Court to the provisions of Reorganisation Act
and 2002 Act. It is submitted that Section 103 of 2002 Act, does
not, by itself, confer an automatic or deemed status of a Multi-
State Cooperative Society upon every society registered under
the State Cooperative Societies Act, merely because the parent
State has undergone reorganisation. It is urged that a factual
inquiry is required to be undertaken to determine the
applicability of Section 103 of the 2002 Act. In support of the
aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions
1
of this Court .
11. Learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 8746 of
2013 has contended that by virtue of Section 103(1) of the 2002
Act, the Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society, Gadarpur is
deemed to be a Multi-State Cooperative Society. It is submitted
that the respondents have failed to follow the scheme envisaged
1
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary and Others v. Milkiyat Singh and Others; 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2802
6
under the 2002 Act, and the amendments carried out in bye-
laws of the Society are illegal. In support of the aforesaid
submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this
2
Court .
12. Learned Additional Solicitor General while inviting the attention
of this Court to Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act, has
contended that both the States had already taken necessary
steps to reorganize the Multi-State Cooperative Societies into two
state cooperative societies, within a period of two years,
therefore, the societies shall cease to be Multi-State Cooperative
3
Societies. It is urged that the decision of this Court did not
consider the impact of Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act.
13. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and
have perused the record. At this stage, it is apposite to take note
of the relevant statutory provisions. The Reorganisation Act is a
parliamentary enactment designed to provide for a
comprehensive legal framework governing the territorial,
institutional, administrative and legal consequences arising from
bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. The said Act
came into force w.e.f. 09.11.2000. Section 87 of the
2
Naresh Shankar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. , (2009) 16 SCC 157
3
Naresh Shankar Srivastava (supra)
7
Reorganisation Act provides that the law which was applicable
on the date of bifurcation of State would continue to cover the
successor State i.e., Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) for a period
of two years, as applicable by order, subject to such adaptations
and modifications of the law. This provision embodies the
doctrine of legislative continuity, ensuring that statutory regimes
governing local institutions, including Cooperative Societies,
remain operational until replaced by fresh legislation. Section 87
of the Act is extracted below for the facility of reference: -
“ 87. Power to adapt laws.—
For the purpose of facilitating the application in
relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh or
Uttaranchal of any law made before the appointed
day, the appropriate Government may, before the
expiration of two years from that day, by order,
make such adaptations and modifications of the
law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as
may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon
every such law shall have effect subject to the
adaptations and modifications so made until
altered, repealed or amended by a competent
Legislature or other competent authority.
Explanation.— In this section, the expression
“appropriate Government” means as respects any
law relating to a matter enumerated in the Union
List, the Central Government, and as respects any
other law in its application to a State, the State
Government.”
8
14. Section 93 of the Reorganisation Act provides that provisions of
the said Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Section 93
reads as under: -
“93. Effect of provisions of the Act inconsistent
with other laws. –
The provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law.”
15. The 2002 Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law
relating to cooperative societies, with objects not confined to one
State and serving the interests of members in more than one
State, to facilitate the voluntary formation and democratic
functioning of cooperatives as people’s institutions based on
self-help and mutual aid and to enable them to promote their
economic and social betterment and to provide functional
autonomy. Under the 2002 Act, a Multi-State Cooperative
Society may come into existence either by registration under
Section 5 or by conversion into a Multi-State Cooperative Society
under Section 22 of the 2002 Act. A Multi-State Cooperative
Society may also come into existence by a legal fiction as
provided under Section 103(1) of the 2002 Act. Section 103 of
the 2002 Act deals with cooperative societies functioning
immediately before Reorganisation of States.
9
16. The Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011
incorporated Part IX-B in the Constitution of India, which deals
with provisions relating to cooperative societies. The High Court
th
of Gujarat struck down Part IX-B of the 97 Constitutional
nd
Amendment on 22 April, 2013, on the ground that it required
ratification of the majority of State Legislatures as per Article
368(2) of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, the
Government of India filed a Civil Appeal against this judgment
th
before this Court, which, in its majority judgment dated 20
July, 2021, pronounced that Part IX-B of the Constitution of
India is operative only insofar as it concerns Multi-State
Cooperative Societies both within the various States and in the
Union Territories of India. Therefore, in order to bring the 2002
Act in consonance with Constitution (Ninety-Seventh
Amendment) Act, 2011, to plug loopholes in the existing
legislation and to strengthen the governance of Multi-State
Cooperative Societies, the 2002 Act was amended by Act No.11
of 2023 with effect from 03.08.2023.
17. A proviso to Section 103 was added by Amendment Act No.11 of
2023. The proviso came into force with effect from 03.08.2023.
Section 103(1) as amended by Act No.11 of 2023 is extracted
below for the facility of reference: -
10
“ 103(1) Where, by virtue of the provisions of Part II
of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956)
or any other enactment relating to reorganisation
of states, any cooperative society which
immediately before the day on which the
reorganisation takes place, had its objects confined
to one state becomes, as from that day, a multi-
state cooperative society, it shall be deemed to be a
multi-state cooperative society registered under the
corresponding provisions of this Act and the bye-
laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act,
continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.
[Provided that where all the successor States
take necessary steps to divide or reorganise such
deemed multi-State co-operative society into
State co-operative societies in order to confine
their objects, services and the members to
respective States within a period of three years,
such deemed multi-State cooperative society
shall cease to be a multi-State co-operative
society:
Provided further that the deemed multi-State co-
operative society other than those mentioned in
the first proviso shall submit an application for
registration and obtain the certificate of
registration from the Central Registrar.]”
18. Now, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. In exercise
of powers conferred by Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act,
admittedly the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) adopted
the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. A meeting
between the officers of Uttar Pradesh and Officers of State of
Uttaranchal was convened on 08.02.2001 wherein it was
decided that in respect of Societies which have assumed the
status of Multi-State Cooperative Societies, a meeting of General
11
Body shall be convened for reconstitution of such societies and
with consent of both the States, the proposal shall be sent for
their reorganization to the Central Registrar, Multi-State
Cooperative Societies. A meeting of the General Body of the
Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society, Bajpur was convened
on 03.04.2001 in which a resolution for constituting separate
Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies consisting of 34
villages in Rampur, District of U.P. and 34 villages in Bajpur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, was unanimously passed.
Accordingly, Cane Commissioner/Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Uttar Pradesh on 03.11.2001 made appropriate
amendments to bye-law no.3 of the Society.
19. The Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad, by an order dated
14.05.2002, directed deletion of names of 34 villages including
the village Suar in District Rampur from the area of operation of
the society and ordered inclusion of the said villages in
Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society Ltd. Suar, District
Rampur, U.P. Consequently, the area of the operation of the
society was curtailed and restricted to the areas which fell in the
Territory of State of Uttaranchal.
20. The area of operation of Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society,
Gadarpur, consisted of 102 villages. On bifurcation of the State,
12
9 villages of Suar Tehsil in Rampur continued to be in State of
Uttar Pradesh whereas 93 villages, namely 70 villages of
Gadarpur, 14 villages of Tehsil, Bajpur and 5 villages of Tehsil
Kiccha in Udham Singh Nagar fell in the territory of new State of
Uttaranchal. In pursuance of policy decision taken by officers of
both the States on 08.02.2001, consequential action was taken
by Administrator of the society in presence of general body on
19.04.2003, by which 9 villages of Tehsil Swar District, Rampur
were directed to be deleted and a decision was taken to
reconstitute the Society with remaining 93 villages in the State
of Uttaranchal. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal
passed a consequential order on 01.12.2003, implementing the
deletion of 9 villages from the area of operation of Sugarcane
Growers Cooperative Society, Gadarpur.
21. The 2002 Act came into force w.e.f. 19.08.2002. However, prior
to it, a meeting between the officers of State of Uttar Pradesh
and Uttaranchal was convened on 08.02.2001, wherein decision
was taken to reconstitute and reorganize the societies as their
area of operation fell within the States of Uttar Pradesh and
Uttaranchal. The said action and the consequential action of
reconstitution of the society was taken under the transitional
regime as provided under Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act.
13
22. We may now take note of Section 103 of 2002 Act which
introduces a deeming fiction, whereby certain societies affected
by reorganisation may be treated as Multi-State Cooperative
Societies. It is well settled legal proposition that a legal fiction
must be strictly confined to the purpose for which it is created
and cannot be extended beyond its legitimate field. Legal fictions
are crafted tools, precise in purpose and limited in reach. The
deeming fiction created under Section 103 of the 2002 Act
cannot, in any case be construed in isolation so as to override
the express statutory scheme contained in Reorganisation Act,
which is an enactment governing all legal, administrative and
institutional consequences arising from bifurcation of erstwhile
State of Uttar Pradesh. The Reorganisation Act has also a non-
obstante clause i.e., Section 93. The deeming fiction which
though provides for a contingency on bifurcation of State,
embodied in Section 103 of 2002 Act, did not apply in view of
decision taken for reconstitution of the societies under the
Reorganisation Act.
23. For yet another reason, the Societies cannot be treated as Multi-
4
State Cooperative Societies under the 2002 Act. This Court has
held that deeming fiction under Section 103 of 2002 Act is
4
Milkiyat Singh and Others (supra)
14
neither automatic nor universal, but is conditional upon factual
determination of the objects of the concerned Society and it has
to be ascertained whether the object of such Society extend to
more than one State. This Court emphasised the conceptual
distinction between ‘objects’ and ‘area of operation’ and clarified
that residence of the members or the geographical spread of
activity cannot substitute the statutory requirement that
principal objects must themselves be Multi States in character.
Applying the aforesaid principle to the instant appeals, and on
careful scrutiny of bye-laws, it is evident that the object of the
society are confined to safeguarding and promoting the interests
of local canegrowers and their objects do not evince any
intention to serve the members across the State boundaries.
24. Thus, the statutory scheme and chronology of events leave no
manner of doubt that decisions taken to reorganize the societies
on bifurcation of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh are valid in
view of Sections 87 and 93 of Reorganisation Act. Section 103 of
2002 Act neither operates automatically nor could it
retrospectively invalidate the completed actions undertaken
under the Reorganisation Act. It is a cardinal principle of
interpretation of statutes that provisions contained in two
statutes must be, if possible, interpreted in a harmonious
15
5
manner to give full effect to both the statutes . The overriding
effect of Reorganisation Act and effect of Section 103 of the 2002
Act necessitates a harmonious construction by which operation
of legal fiction has to be restricted, in cases where action for
reorganisation of the Societies has already been taken and in
respect of the Society whose objects and area of operation are
confined to a single State. A deeming provision under Section
103 of 2002 Act cannot unsettle such completed action for
reorganisation, by virtue of Sections 87 and 93 of the
Reorganisation Act. In the absence of multiple State objects in
the bye-laws of the Societies, the same cannot be treated as
Multi-State Cooperative Societies, as statutory pre-conditions for
invoking Section 103 of 2002 Act are absent.
6
25. In so far as, the decision rendered by this Court is concerned,
suffice it to say that the aforesaid decision dealt with provisions
of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and the impact of
Sections 87 and 93 of Reorganisation Act was not considered.
Therefore, the same has no application to these appeals.
5
In re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
Stamp Act, 1899; (2024) 6 SCC 1.
6
Naresh Shankar Srivastava (supra)
16
26. In view of foregoing discussion, we hold that Sugarcane Growers
Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur are not Multi-State
Cooperative Societies under the 2002 Act. The judgment and
order dated 14.03.2007 passed by the High Court is quashed
and set aside. The judgment and order dated 05.09.2006 passed
in C.A. No.8746 of 2013 by High Court is upheld. The
authorities under the State Cooperative law shall take steps to
conduct the elections of the Societies expeditiously.
27. In the result, Civil Appeal Nos. 8743 of 2013, 8744 of 2013 and
8745 of 2013 are allowed, whereas Civil Appeal No. 8746 of
2013 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
..…..…….……………….………….……….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
.……………………………….….……..….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 10, 2026.
17