Appointment of an Administrator immediately before scheduled elections, without legal necessity, is impermissible.

The Petitioner challenged the order dated 31 July 2026 by which the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies appointed an Administrator for Anand Lok Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd.

Earlier, in W.P.(C) 7619/2026, this Court had stayed the RCS’s order dated 18 May 2026 appointing an Administrator and permitted the election process for the Society’s Managing Committee to continue in accordance with law.

Elections were scheduled for 2 August 2026, but the Administrator was appointed two days before the election on the ground that the Managing Committee’s term had expired.

The Court subsequently noted that the elections had been conducted and that a new Managing Committee had been elected.

The Petitioner thereafter alleged irregularities in the elections and sought preservation of the election records, which were stated to have been handed over by the Returning Officer to the newly elected Managing Committee.

Whether the Deputy Registrar was justified in appointing an Administrator and superseding the Managing Committee two days before the scheduled elections, particularly when the election process was continuing pursuant to the Court’s earlier order.

Whether directions should be issued for preservation and production of the election records to enable the Petitioner to pursue remedies challenging the elections.

Whether the Petitioner’s remedies to challenge the elections under the applicable Act and Rules should remain open.

The Court applied the statutory scheme governing cooperative societies, including the Registrar’s power under the applicable Act to appoint an Administrator where legally warranted, while observing that such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in a manner that interferes with an ongoing election process.

Where elections are imminent and a Returning Officer has already been appointed, an Administrator should not ordinarily be appointed merely for administrative supervision; if necessary, the Registrar could appoint an Observer to monitor the elections.

The Court also recognised the obligation to preserve election records where allegations of electoral irregularities are raised, without foreclosing statutory remedies available under the Act and Rules.

The Court found that the appointment of an Administrator two days before the scheduled elections, despite the pending writ proceedings and the Court’s earlier direction permitting the election process to continue, was unnecessary and inappropriate in the circumstances.

The Administrator possessed broad statutory powers, and vesting those powers in an officer for only the brief period immediately preceding the elections was not justified when a Returning Officer was already in place.

Although the RCS stated that its objective was to ensure orderly elections, its own officer fairly conceded that the appointment may have been an error of judgment; consequently, the Court declined to pursue the matter further because the elections had already taken place.

However, in view of the Petitioner’s allegations of irregularities, the Court considered preservation of the election records essential to facilitate any lawful challenge.

It directed Mr. Pawan Saini, Deputy Registrar, to visit the Society’s office on 27 August 2026 and take custody of the entire election record, with the process to be completed by 31 August 2026.

The Petitioner was directed to provide, within two days, a list of the records required to be preserved and was permitted to remain present during the taking over of the records.

The President and Secretary of the Society were made responsible for handing over the records, and failure to do so would be viewed strictly against them.

The Petitioner’s statutory remedies to challenge the elections under the applicable Act and Rules were expressly kept open, and the petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.