Cooperative Society appointments must adhere to democratic election processes under Section 49(8) of the Act.

The petitioner, a member of the Sarva Adivasi Samaj and an eligible candidate for the post of President of the Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Jharnapara, challenged the action of the Respondent authorities in nominating Respondent No. 7 as President instead of conducting a democratic election.

The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 4 initiated an appointment process via an order dated 14.11.2024, bypassing the mandatory election procedures.

Despite an internal enquiry report by the Senior Cooperative Inspector recommending the removal of Respondent No. 7 due to ineligibility, no election was conducted.

The petitioner sought the quashing of the appointment and a direction for the State Cooperative Election Commission to hold elections.

1. Whether the appointment of the President of a Cooperative Society through nomination/appointment rather than democratic election is legally sustainable under the governing Act.

2. Whether the court should direct the Joint Registrar to resolve the grievance regarding the irregular filling of the post within a specific timeline.

Section 49(8) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which governs the management and the conduct of elections within cooperative societies.

Procedural precedent set in W.P.(C) No. 5513 of 2025, which established that grievances regarding cooperative elections and appointments should first be adjudicated by the departmental authority (Joint Registrar) in an expedited, quasi-judicial manner.

The Court did not delve into the merits of the appointment or the findings of the enquiry report.

The Court observed that the legal issue regarding the vacancy and the necessity of an election was identical to a previous matter decided by the Court in October 2025.

The Court applied the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies by directing the petitioner to submit a formal representation to the Joint Registrar (Respondent No. 6).

The Court reasoned that since Section 49(8) of the Act provides a statutory framework for such disputes, the competent authority must first pass a reasoned order after affording a hearing to all affected parties, including the incumbent President (Respondent No. 7).

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 6 within two weeks and directed Respondent No. 6 to decide the representation in accordance with Section 49(8) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act through a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days of receipt, providing a due opportunity of hearing to all affected parties.