Invalidated membership transfers necessitate fresh cooperative-society elections.

The petitioner, a member of Maharishi Dayanand CGHS Ltd., challenged the Society’s Managing Committee elections held on 9 August 2026, alleging that 18 persons whose membership transfers had not been regularised were permitted to vote and contest.

In earlier proceedings, the Court had directed that the elections proceed as scheduled, appointed an observer, and directed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) to decide a representation concerning the voters’ list within three months.

The RCS subsequently rejected the representation, finding that the transfers to the 18 persons were not legally sustainable and that they could not be treated as validly transferred or regularised members.

The petitioner sought countermanding of the election and fresh elections.

Whether the petition seeking to countermand the election and direct fresh elections continued to survive after the RCS rejected the representation concerning the 18 persons’ membership.

Whether interim directions were required for the Society’s administration pending appointment of an Administrator.

The Court considered Rule 29(g) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007, concerning transfers or nominations of membership, and Rule 92, which the RCS found inapplicable in the circumstances.

The Society relied on Ranjana Rajagopalan v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, concerning Rule 29(g), to contend that nominees need not be blood relations.

The Court did not independently determine the scope of these rules or decide the validity of the transfers; it proceeded on the basis of the RCS’s order and reserved members’ rights to challenge that order.

The RCS had decided the representation as directed in the earlier proceedings and concluded that the 18 persons were not validly transferred or regularised members.

In light of that decision, the Court recorded that fresh elections would have to be held and that the RCS was in the process of appointing an Administrator.

It therefore held that the petitioner’s immediate prayer to countermand the election and obtain fresh elections no longer survived, without deciding the underlying membership dispute on its merits.

The Court reserved the Society members’ right to challenge that order.

It directed the RCS to appoint an Administrator within two weeks, if one had not already been appointed; until then, the existing Managing Committee could continue to function but could make no major financial decisions other than day-to-day expenses.

Pending applications were also disposed of.