Delay and Laches Bar Writ Jurisdiction When Alternative Remedies Exist to Challenge Cooperative Society Elections

The petitioner, a member of the Gujarat State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd (Respondent No. 3), challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Director and Chairman of the Bank

Respondent No. 4 was originally a Director of the Gujarat State Co-operative Bank and was nominated/elected to Respondent No. 3's board in 2021

After serving his first term, he was re-elected as Chairman on 26.02.2024

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 is ineligible under Section 74(1A)(ii) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, as he is not an "elected" member of the primary society and is not an agriculturist

The petitioner approached the High Court in September 2025, approximately four years after Respondent No. 4 first assumed office

1. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the appointment and whether any fundamental rights were infringed

2. Whether the appointment of Respondent No. 4 violates Section 74(1A)(ii) of the Act regarding the distinction between nominated and elected directors

3. Whether the petition is barred by the doctrine of delay, laches, and acquiescence

4. Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 145U bars the writ petition

The Court primarily applied Section 74(1A)(ii) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961

Section 145U, which mandates that election disputes be submitted to the Co-operative Tribunal

Section 145Z regarding the election of officers

The Court followed the constitutional principles of "Democratic Member Control" as highlighted in Vipul M. Chaudhary v. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation

The Court applied the doctrine of laches as established in Union of India v. N. Murugesan, holding that unreasonable delay in pursuing a claim disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226

The Court found that Respondent No. 4 was duly elected through a formal process conducted by the Deputy Collector/Election Officer in 2021 and 2024, refuting the claim that his status as a "nominated" representative from the State Co-operative Bank made him ineligible

The Court noted that the Act does not expressly bar a nominated director from contesting for the Chairmanship

Regarding the petitioner's locus, the Court reasoned that once a person becomes a member of a society, they lose individual identity to the collective body; since the petitioner failed to show a violation of a specific personal fundamental right, the petition was unmaintainable

Furthermore, the Court observed a gross delay of over four years (2021 to 2025) in filing the challenge, which constituted acquiescence and a waiver of rights

The Court also highlighted that the petitioner suppressed the fact that a related challenge to the Bank's bye-laws was already sub-judice

The Court answered that the petitioner failed to prove any infringement of fundamental rights and that an efficacious alternative remedy existed under Section 145U of the Act

The request to remove Respondent No. 4 was denied, and all interim reliefs were vacated