An interim cooperative management committee cannot enrol or remove society members.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 27 August 2026 by which the Additional Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar acted on an Interim Committee of Management’s resolution to remove 22 society members and declare Petitioner No. 2’s appointment as Secretary void.

The Interim Committee had been appointed on 10 March 2026, with express restrictions against admitting or removing members and limits on financial transactions.

The Registrar accepted that he had acted under a misconception by taking the Committee’s proposal into account and sought liberty to examine membership claims afresh after hearing affected persons.

The petitioners also sought permission for Petitioner No. 2 to continue as Secretary.

Whether an Interim Committee of Management appointed under Section 29(4-B) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, may remove existing members or enrol new members.

Whether the Registrar could act under Section 128 of the Act on the Interim Committee’s resolution concerning membership.

Section 29(4-B) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 provides for appointment of an Interim Committee after the elected Committee ceases to exist; under Section 29(4-C), it exercises the Management Committee’s powers and functions subject to the Registrar’s directions, and it ceases to exist after six months or upon reconstitution of the elected Committee, whichever is earlier.

Rules 38–49 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 prescribe the procedure for membership, while Rules 438 and 438-A concern the constitution and role of an Interim Committee, including steps towards reconstitution of an elected Committee; they do not independently confer power to alter the General Body’s composition.

Section 128 authorises the Registrar to annul a society resolution or cancel an officer’s order if it is outside the society’s objects or contravenes the Act, rules or bye-laws; that power does not validate a resolution beyond the Interim Committee’s authority.

The Court relied on K. Shantaraj v. M.L. Nagraj, (1997) 6 SCC 137, Jt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala v. T.A. Kuttappan, (2000) 6 SCC 127, and Vijay Shankar Rai v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 1052, for the principle that an interim or administrator-led arrangement is temporary and does not carry authority to enrol new members.

The Interim Committee’s authority was subject to the Registrar’s directions, and its appointment order expressly prohibited both enrolment and removal of members.

Its resolution purporting to remove members therefore exceeded its authority.

Although Section 128 empowered the Registrar to annul resolutions, it did not permit him to give effect to a resolution that the Interim Committee lacked power to pass; the Registrar’s order accordingly could not validate the resolution.

The Court did not determine Petitioner No. 2’s entitlement to continue as Secretary, noting that the Interim Committee remained functional.

It quashed the Registrar’s order dated 27 August 2026 and partly allowed the writ petition, but refused the request for Petitioner No. 2 to continue as Secretary.

The competent authority remained at liberty to pass a fresh order under Section 128 in accordance with law, but could not act on or give effect to the Interim Committee’s resolution.