Management Committee Of Npsc Cghs Ltd vs Registrar Of Cooperative Societies And Others

$~72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 26 May, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 27 May, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 7504/2026
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF NPSC CGHS LTD
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aman Sinha, Mr. Varun Pratap
Singh Advocates with Mr. NK
Chokker, Secretary of Petitioner-MC
( through VC )
versus
REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Adv. for RCS
Mr. Rahul Madan, Adv. for R3
( through VC )
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 36392/2026
2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The application stands
disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7504/2026 & CM APPL. 36391/2026
3. The present petition has been filed by the Management Committee of
the NPSC CGHS Ltd. (hereinafter “ Society ”) which is a society registered
under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter “ DCS Act ”).
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7504/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.05.2026
18:50:44

The same has been filed with an affidavit of Sh. Narender Kumar Chhoker,
who is the Secretary of the Management Committee.
th
4. The challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated 30
April, 2026 passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter
“ RCS ”) by which the Special General Body Meeting (SGBM) of the Society
is being convened with the single point agenda of a No Confidence Motion to
be taken up.
5. In the said order it is recorded that a written representation dated 1st
March, 2026 from 70 members out of a total of 203 members of the Society
had been received by the office of the RCS requesting to convene a SGBM
under Section 36(2) of the DCS Act. The office of the RCS had also received
a letter dated 11th March, 2026 from the Secretary of the Society requesting
to be granted a hearing before taking any steps.
6. Further to the above, the office of the RCS had directed the Managing
th
Committee to appear before the Deputy Registrar on 28 April, 2026, which
th th
was thereafter advanced to 16 April, 2026 and later to 27 April, 2026. As
per the impugned order, both parties were heard on 27th April, 2026 and
thereafter the impugned order was passed.
7. The submission of Mr. Aman Sinha, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is
that despite repeated requests, the representation which is stated to have been
sent by the 70 members of the Society has not been provided to the Petitioner
till date. It is further urged that in the absence of the representation itself being
given to the Petitioner, the allegations could not be duly responded to. Ld.
Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in Gajanan Narayan Patil v. Dattatraya Waman Patil, (1990) 3 SCC
634, to argue that non-service of the representation would render the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7504/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.05.2026
18:50:44

impugned order directing the Society to call the SGBM as illegal. Lastly, the
ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on Rule 46(3) of the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Rules, 2007 (hereinafter “ DCS Rules ”) which mandates sending the
requisition for calling SGBM to the registered office of the Society, which has
not been complied with in this case.
8. Mr. Tushar Sannu, ld. Counsel appearing for the RCS submits that the
hearing had been provided so that the Petitioner can be heard properly and to
comply with the principles of natural justice, though there is no specific
provision under the relevant provisions of the DCS Act to give an opportunity
of hearing in such cases.
9. Mr. Rahul Madan, ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 submits
that he is one of the persons who has signed the representation received by
the office of the RCS, and whose name appears at serial no. 2 in the impugned
th
order dated 30 April, 2026. It is submitted that he is not a lone
representationist but 69 other members of the Society have also signed the
representation as there are serious allegations against the Petitioner i.e., the
Managing Committee of the Society, for which the RCS is taking action.
10. The Court has considered the matter. Clearly, upon perusal of the
st
impugned order, it is evident that the representation dated 1 March, 2026 has
been received by the office of the RCS from 70 members out of the total of
203 members of the Society. There is no doubt that the Secretary of the
Society had asked for a hearing which is also recorded in the impugned order.
However, the impugned order also records that the single point agenda for the
SGBM is a no confidence motion against the present Managing Committee.
11. Under such circumstances, it is completely inexplicable as to how any
effective hearing could have taken place before the RCS in respect of a motion
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7504/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.05.2026
18:50:44

for no-confidence without the allegations being communicated to the
Managing Committee. Further, holding of the SGBM for the no-confidence
motion without the allegations being made to the Managing Committee would
also be to the detriment of the remaining members who would be voting, as
they too would have no prior knowledge of the allegations and its details.
12. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that since 70 members
have signed the representation, there is an issue of privacy also of these
members. Hence, the said representation had not been provided to the
Petitioner.
13. The said submission is without any basis in law. Any representation
against which a hearing is being held to hear both sides would have to be
supplied to the affected party. This is the settled law on principles of natural
justice as also in terms of Rule 46(3) and (4) of the DCS Rules which reads
as under:
“46. General Body Meetings
[...]
(3) A requisition for a special general body meeting to be
convened under section 33 of the Act shall state the object
of the such meeting, and shall be signed by at least one
fifth of members of the co-operative society or the
Registrar, as the case may be, and shall be sent to the
registered office of the society and copy to Registrar.
(4) On receipt of the requisition as aforesaid, the
committee shall consider and convene the special
general body meeting or direct its secretary or president
to convene the special general body meeting, within the
stipulated time of thirty days from the date of receipt of
requisition from members or Registrar as the case may be.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7504/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.05.2026
18:50:44

At special general body meeting no business other than
that specified in the notice or as specified by the Registrar,
shall be transacted.”
14. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the copy of the representation having
not been provided to the Petitioner, no effective hearing could have taken
place before the RCS. Thus, impugned order dated 30th April, 2026 is set
aside.
15. The ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has informed the Court that the
SGBM is scheduled to take place on 30th April, 2026. In view of the
impugned order having been set aside, the SGBM scheduled on 30th April,
2026 stands cancelled.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances, including the fact that the
RCS had earlier provided a hearing to the Petitioner in line with principles of
natural justice, the following directions are issued:
st
i. Copy of the representation dated 1 March, 2026 be supplied to
th
the Petitioner - Managing Committee of the Society by 15 June,
2026;
th
ii. The Petitioner shall file its reply to the same by 15 July, 2026;
iii. Immediately thereafter, the hearing can be fixed and the RCS
shall proceed in accordance with law.
iv. The date for the SGBM, if required, shall also be fixed and
communicated.
17. At this stage, the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the other
grievance of the Petitioner is that it has filed several complaints with the RCS
against members of the previous Managing Committee of the Society and
sought inquiry under Section 60/61 of the DCS to be conducted. It is
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7504/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.05.2026
18:50:44

submitted that the proceedings in the said complaints before the RCS which
are not proceeding whereas the no confidence motion was proceeding with
great expedition.
18. The ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, who was a member of the
previous Managing Committee of the Society, objects to these submissions
and submits that the proceedings under Section 61/62 of the DCS Act are not
connected with the present matter.
19. Accordingly, the RCS shall adopt a fair and transparent procedure and
take action in the complaints under Section 61/62 of the DCS Act by the
Petitioner. Further, the proceedings under Section 61/62 of the DCS Act as
th
also the motion for no confidence shall be disposed of by the RCS by 30
September, 2026.
20. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. The petition is
disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
21. Needless to add, this Court has not gone into the merits of the
allegations raised by either side, at this stage.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MAY 26, 2026 /ys/msh
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7504/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.05.2026
18:50:44