Failure to provide copy of representation containing allegations to Managing Committee violates principles of natural justice.

The Management Committee of NPSC CGHS Ltd. (Petitioner) challenged an order dated 30th April 2026 issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS).

The RCS order convened a Special General Body Meeting (SGBM) to consider a "No Confidence Motion" against the Petitioner following a representation by 70 out of 203 members.

Although the RCS heard the Petitioner on 27th April 2026, the Petitioner contended that the RCS failed to provide them with a copy of the actual representation containing the allegations, despite repeated requests.

The Respondent argued that the representation was withheld to protect the privacy of the signatories.

1. Whether an order to convene an SGBM for a no-confidence motion is valid if the grounds/allegations in the underlying representation were not disclosed to the affected Managing Committee?

2. Whether the RCS complied with the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedures under Rule 46 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007?

Section 36(2) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003, regarding the power to call a SGBM.

Rule 46(3) and (4) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007, which mandates that a requisition for an SGBM must state the object of the meeting, be signed by at least one-fifth of the members, and be sent to the registered office of the society.

Settled principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court precedent in Gajanan Narayan Patil v. Dattatraya Waman Patil (1990) 3 SCC 634, which establishes that non-service of the requisition/representation renders the order to call an SGBM illegal.

The Court reasoned that holding a hearing without providing the underlying representation was a violation of natural justice, as the Managing Committee could not effectively respond to unknown allegations.

The Court rejected the Respondents’ "privacy" argument, noting that any document forming the basis of a quasi-judicial hearing must be supplied to the affected party.

The Court observed that the lack of disclosure prejudiced not only the Petitioner but also the general body of voting members, who would be forced to vote on a motion without prior knowledge of the specific details or the Petitioner's response.

The Court found that since Rule 46(3) requires the requisition to be sent to the registered office of the society, the RCS's failure to furnish the copy invalidated the subsequent order.

The Court directed the RCS to: (i) supply the representation to the Petitioner by 15th June 2026; (ii) allow the Petitioner to file a reply by 15th July 2026; and (iii) conduct a fresh hearing in accordance with the law; and (iv) adopt a transparent procedure regarding the Petitioner’s cross-complaints under Sections 61/62 and dispose of all related proceedings by 30th September 2026.