2025:HHC:25335 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4548 of 2024 a/w CWP No. 10551 of 2024 Reserved on : 01.07.2025 Decided on : 30.07.2025 1. CWP No. 4548 of 2024 The Mehta Transport Co-operative Society and others. …Petitioners Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 2. CWP No. 10551 of 2024 The Mehta Co-operative Society Branch office, Mamoor. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate (through V.C.), with Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate, in both petitions. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2, in CWP No. 4548 of 2024 and for respondent No.1 to 3, in CWP No. 10551 of 2024. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:25335 Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advoate, with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 9, in CWP No. 4548 of 2024 and for respondents No.4 to 10, in CWP No. 10551 of 2024. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CWP No. 4548 of 2024 By way of writ petition, i.e., CWP No. 4548 of 2024, the petitioners primarily are seeking the quashing of order dated 04.05.2024, passed by respondent No.1, in Appeal No. 02 of 2024, titled Meenakshi Mehta & Ors. Vs. Mehta Transport Cooperative Societies & Ors. The other reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are not being gone into by the Court, as arguments were not addressed qua the said reliefs and the parties restricted their contentions vis-a-vis the legality of order dated 04.05.2024. 2. Along-with present petition, CWP No. 10551 of 2024 was also listed and parties agreed that the fate of the said writ petition would depend upon the outcome of the present writ petition and, therefore, no independent arguments are addressed in the said writ petition. 3. This Court also would like to observe at this stage 3 2025:HHC:25335 itself that as this Court has been called upon to go into the legality of the order that has been passed by the Secretary, Corporation, it has restricted itself to the exercise of the power of judicial review and heard the parties strictly on the legality of said order within the parameters of the scope of judicial review of a quasi-judicial order. 4. The Authority has passed the impugned order in compliance to the order(s) passed by this Court in cases mentioned in the impugned order itself, which cases were disposed of by this Court on 11.01.2024. Said order is being quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “By way of CWP No.3020 of 2018, titled as Meenakshi Mehta and others versus the Mehta Cooperative Transport Society and others, the petitioners therein have prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “Directing the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society and Returning Officer to remove from the voter list respondents No.6 to 18, as per annexure A-8. ii) Directing the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society and Returning Officer not to conduct any election before 23.03.2020 in compliance of order dated 25.07.2018. iii) That in case the Hon'ble Court comes to the 4 2025:HHC:25335 conclusion that the election be conducted then the same be conducted on the basics of the voter list as prepared for election on 23.05.2015 and new election programme be framed and the petitioners may be allowed to participate in the election. iv) Declaring members of the Society enrolled after 23.03.2015 by way of various resolutions as illegal and in contravention to the Cooperative Society Acts and rules. v) Directing the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society/authorities concerned to hold free and fair inquiry for fuzzing, embezzling and forging the records by respondent No.5 which is pending before the Arbitrator under section 72.” 2. By way of CWP No.622 of 2020, titled as Nirmla Mehta and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the petitioners therein have prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) The impugned Orders vide No 6-27/2017- Coop (T&M)-loose dated 07-01-2020 as Annexure-P- 29 & Order No 6-27/2017- oop(T&M)- dated 18-01-2020 as Annexure-P- 30(1) to 30(5), passed by Respondent No 2 may kindly be set- aside and powers of Managing Committee elected on 22-12-2018 may kindly be restored in the interest of Justice and equity. b) The Area of operation of the Society may 5 2025:HHC:25335 kindly be declared as Tehsil Solan in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that as of now only relief (b) survives. 4. By way of CWP No.1316 of 2022, titled as Meenakshi Mehta and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the petitioners therein have prayed for the following reliefs:- “I) Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07-12-2021 Annexure P- 3 being in direct violation of provisions of H.P Cooperative Act, 1963. II) Writ in the nature of quo-warranto directing the respondent No.2 to adjudicate upon the appeal No.39 of 2021 Annexure P- and appeal No.76 of 2021 on merit and pass an order in accordance with law. III) Writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to discharge his statutory functions by deciding the controversy effectively, conclusively and in accordance with the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, 1968.” 5. By way of CMPMO No.3 of 2019, titled as Meenakshi Mehta and others versus The Registrar Cooperative Society and others, the petitioners therein have prayed for the following reliefs: “1) Declare the formation of Managing Committee vide Letter No.10-522/2108- Coop. (Law) dated 27-12-2018 in RSA No.522/2018- 6 2025:HHC:25335 titled as the Mehta Transport Co-operative Society ltd. versus State of H.P. and vide letter dated 24-12- 018 to be wrong, illegal null and void and non-est in the eyes of law. 2) Declaration to the effect that till date no new Managing Committee is formed in furtherance of elections dated 22-12- 108 as apparently all the members including petitioners were not intimated or associated while the same alleged formation of managing committee. 3) Restraining the illegal Managing Committee formed not to manage the society and directing respondents to administer the Society through Administrator, so that the funds of the society may not be misappropriated and to speed up the inquiry. 4) Restraining respondent No.1, 2 and 3 from not handing over any powers to the respondents 5 to 11 and particularly to respondent No.5 Mr. Raghuvinder Singh Mehta in any manner. 5) Directing the Administrator to take charge vide order dated 26-09-2018 to continue on behalf of the society till the petition under section 72 of the act and inquiry under section 67 of the act matter is not finally adjudicated and till the in the writ petition No.CWP 3020 of 2018 titled as Meenakshi and others Vs. The Mehta Co- operative Transport Society and others is not decided.” 7 2025:HHC:25335 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court suggested that interest of justice would be served in case the surviving relief in CWP No.622 of 2020, i.e., what is the area of operation of the society in issue is decided by a statutory authority, after hearing all the effected parties and thereafter the appeal, which stands rejected vide impugned order, which has been assailed in CWP No.1316 of 2022, can be gone into by the Appellate Authority afresh. 7. As learned counsel for the parties have agreed to the suggestions so made by the Court, therefore, as agreed, all these petitions are disposed of by passing the following directions:- “a) The issue of the area of operation of Himachal Pradesh cooperative Societies shall be decided by Principal Secretary/Secretary (Co-operation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh within a period of two months from today, after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the parties. (b) In the course of the adjudication of this particular issue, the authority shall also decide the issue of the voter list, in terms of relief prayed for CWP No.3020 of 2018. (c) The parties shall be at liberty to place the pleadings in all these petitions before the Secretary concerned. The parties shall also be at liberty to place additional material before the Principal Secretary/ Secretary (Co-operation), if so desired, for which one opportunity shall be 8 2025:HHC:25335 granted to all the parties by the Secretary. (d) After the decision of the Secretary on the said issues, Registrar Cooperative Societies shall hear the parties afresh and decide appeal No.39 of 2021 in accordance with law on the basis of the material already on record as also the order of the Secretary that shall be passed pursuant to the directions being passed by the Court today.” 8. At this stage, Mr. Kulwant Singh Katoch, learned counsel representing the Mehta Cooperative Transport Society, has informed the Court that an office order has been passed by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Solan, H.P., dated 8th January, 2024, appointing an Administrator of the Cooperative Societies, which order is in violation of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, itself, which is opposed to by Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. All that this Court can observe is that in case the parties aggrieved by the issuance of this office order, then, it may have recourse to such remedy, as is available in law. 9. All, these petitions stand disposed of in above terms. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases and the Principal Secretary/Secretary (Co-operation) as well as Registrar shall be performing decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and Rules etc. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9 2025:HHC:25335 10. The Registrar shall deals the appeal within six weeks as from the date of the passing of the order by the Principal Secretary/Secretary (Co- operation), which the party shall be at liberty to bring to the notice of the Registrar so that he can start the hearing of the appeal afresh. COPC No.24 of 2021 11. In view of the directions passed in the above mentioned writ petitions, the contempt petition not pressed, the same is closed and notice discharged.” 5. A perusal of said order demonstrates that the cases were disposed of by this Court by directing Principal Secretary, Corporation, to decide the issue of the operation of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Society and the issue of voter list in terms of relief prayed for in CWP No. 3020 of 2018. It was mentioned in Paragraph No.8 of the order that as far as the issue raised by the parties, i.e., Mehta Transport Cooperative Society, with regard to the appointment of an Administrator of the said Cooperative Society by the Authority vide order dated 08.01.2024 is concerned, said issue could be raised by the agreed party by having such recourse in law, as was available to the party. 6. In terms of the impugned order, the Secretary Corporation to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has 10 2025:HHC:25335 decided the matter as under:- “4. Brief facts as emerging from the respondents submission are that petitioners have tendered resignation and had also applied for the extension of the area of operation of the society which was not approved by the ARCS Solan in stipulated time and it is to be taken as deemed approved amendment. The petitioners have no right or interest in the society in any form and all action of the respondent have been duly approved in the general house the society in which petitioners were present. The outgoing Committee has been elected according to act and rule. Further it is submitted by the Respondent that area of operation of Society is Tehsil Solan & duly approved in General House of Society & ARCS Solan after receiving application dated 08.09.2011 has not decided the same within stipulated period of 90 days, hence amendment deems to be registered on 07.12.2011 i.e. from the dated of receiving application & in addition to that area of operation deems to be registered when ARCS after considering Tehsil Solan as area of operation of Society had approved the election programme on the basis of which election of Society was conducted on 22.12.2018 and new elected Managing Committee of Society had duly been hpheld by the Hon'ble Court of India. Again it is submitted that the Contesting Respondents No. 3 to 9 are not the members of Petitioners Society as they had neither challenged the decision of General House held on 16.04.2017 nor challenged the decision of General House held on 30.09.2020 despite knowledge and in addition to that Registering Officer has no authority to add contesting 11 2025:HHC:25335 Respondents in final voter-list of Society, hence order passed the Registering Officer is wrong, illegal, arbitrary and against law and is reuired to be set-aside and presently there are 21 members in the Petitioners Society. 5. I have gone through the submissions made by Ld.Counsel for parties in detail and also perused the record from Assistant Registrar of Societies, Solan and heard the submissions of Cooperative Department. From the detail examination of the record it emerges that the entire dispute pertains to removal of few petitioners from the society and consequent approval of committee of respondents in election dated 22.12.2018, and two aspects of this dispute one area of operation and other voter list are to be decided in this case only. On the first aspect which is area of operation of the society there is concurrent finding of the Registrar Cooperative society based on reports under section 67,69(i), 69(ii) of HP Cooperative societies Act 1968 which stands is reiterated by the Registrar Cooperative Societies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in his affidavit dated 28th November 2020. All these reports and affidavit are stating that the area of operation of the said society was never extended there was no deemed approval. It is further stated by the Registrar that many request were received for amendment and extension of the area of operation of the society which were turned back as firstly documents were incomplete and secondly as entire dispute was pending before the Hon'ble High Court therefore till then no amendment can be done. The entire record proves that area of operation of the society 12 2025:HHC:25335 was never extended by the ARCS Solan at any time and it remained village Shamtti-Shamlech. The Respondents are claiming deemded amendment but according to section 11 of HP Cooperative Society Act 1968 no amendment is valid unless approved by two third majority and for that purpose three copies of amendment is forwarded. In the present case no amendment was available before ARCS Solan which would be called a valid amendment except a simple application by the Secretary. Therefore Area of operation remained Shamtti -Shamlech. On the Second aspect of voter list it is clear that when area of operation of the society was Shamtti- Shamlech then no person could have been enrolled from outside area of operation of the society and the election dated 22.12.2018 in which voter list was prepared of members outside the area of operation of the society was an illegal voter list and people from outside the area of operation of the society casted the vote in the election dated 22.12.2018 and therefore election was illegal and invalid. When the Registrar is stating that area of operation of society was not extended then definitely people-members from within the area of operation should have been included in voter list only and not outsiders. The claim of the respondent that few petitioners resigned is again contrary to the finding of the Deputy Registrar Consumer dated 14.12.2018 where he has held the resolution no. 4 &5 not in continuity with main resolution and have been added subsequently and resignation of few petitioners are not proved. The Order has not been assailed till date and has force of law. 13 2025:HHC:25335 In view of above reasoning it is held that area of operation of the said society is village Shamtti-Shamlech and the election dated 14.12.2018 were based on illegal voter list hence is an invalid election. There is violation of rules 11(e) of HP Cooperative Societies Rules 1971 and the voter list forming the bases of election dated 22.12.2018 was prepared in direct violation of HP Cooperative Societies Act and Rules. Accordingly Present appeal is devoid of merits. Case file be consigned to record room after due completion. Announced.” 7. In terms of the order under challenge, the Secretary, Corporation has held that the area of operation of the Society was Shamti and Shamlech, because no amendment was incorporated in the Bye-laws of the Society in terms of the provision of Section 11 of the 1968 Act and no amendment was available before A.R.C.S. Solan, which could be called a valid amendment. What was available was a simple application by the Secretary of the Society. Besides this, Secretary, Corporation further held that it was clear that when area of operation of the Society was Shamti-Shamlech only, no person could have been enrolled as Member from outside the area of the operation of the Society. Election held on 22.12.2018 in which voter list was prepared including outside Members, i.e., 14 2025:HHC:25335 Members outside the area of operation of Society, was on the basis of an illegal voter list as people from outside the area of operation of the Society cast their vote in the said election dated by 22.12.2018, which election, therefore, was illegal and invalid. Secretary, Corporation further held that when Registrar, Cooperative Societies has held that the area of operation of Society was not extended, then definitely people/Members from within the area of operation only should have been included in the voter list and not from outside. The claim of the respondents (present petitioners) that few Members resigned, was contrary to the findings of the Deputy Registrar, Consumer dated 14.12.2018, in terms whereof, said Authority concluded that Resolutions No.4 and 5 of Resolution dated 15.06.2016 were not in continuity with main resolution and had been added subsequently and the resignation of some of the respondents were not proved and said order of Deputy Registrar had not been challenged and was in force. On these reasonings, Secretary, Corporation held that as the area of operation of the Society is village Shamti-Shamlech and as election dated 14.12.2018 was based on illegal voter list, hence, same was 15 2025:HHC:25335 invalid election. There was violation of the H.P Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971 and the voter list forming the basis of election dated by 22.12.2018 was prepared in direct violation of the H.P Cooperative Societies Act and Rules. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the Authority below erred in appreciating that there was a deemed extension of the area of operation of the Society and in terms of the meeting of the Society convened on 16.04.2017, certain Members quit the Society voluntarily, whereas, certain Members were included in it. He further submitted that fresh elections took place in the year 2018 and there was no challenge to the elected Committee by way of any Election Petition. He further submitted that the application filed by Shri K. S. Mehta, seeking an Inquiry under Section 67 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, could not have been entertained by the Authority for the reason that it did not meet the requirement of minimum 1/3rd of the Members seeking Inquiry. He further submitted that the amendment in the Bye-laws was carried out by the Managing Committee as well as the General House and 16 2025:HHC:25335 the proceedings of the said General House dated 06.09.2011, which are at Page-91 of the paper-book demonstrate that Resolutions No.4 and 5 therein, were signed by 9 people and 8 of them were the respondents. He further submitted that the objections were raised belatedly and in the absence of there being any challenge to the Constitution of the Managing Committee by way of an Election Petition, the entire process undertaken by the authorities was bad in law and this extremely important aspect of the matter was ignored by the Secretary, while passing the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents submitted that the alleged amendment carried out was a sham amendment as the same was in violation of the statutory provisions of the Act. Provisions of Section 11 of the Act as well as the Rules framed therein, were not followed either in letter or spirit. He submitted that the findings returned to this effect by the Authority were correct findings and there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the same. He submitted that there are no resignations on record by the Members as alleged. The records were fabricated 17 2025:HHC:25335 by the Secretary of the Society. New Members were added illegally. The authorities rightly took cognizance of the complaint as grave illegalities were committed by the General Secretary in connivance with few others. 10. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his submissions and submitted that the impugned order was per se perverse and not sustainable. 11. The moot issue before this Court is as to whether the findings returned by Secretary Co-operation to the effect that the area of operation of the Society was village Shamti- Shamlech and there was no deemed amendment of the extension of the area of the Society and the election dated 14.12.2018 was on basis of an illegal voter list, are sustainable in the eyes of law or not. 12. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the H.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1968 Act”). The 1968 Act provides for amendment of the Bye- laws of a Co-operative Society in terms of the provision of Section 11 thereof. This provision reads as under:- 18 2025:HHC:25335 “11. Amendment of bye-laws of a co-operative society:- (1) No amendment of any by-laws of a Co- operative Society shall be valid unless approved by the resolution of a general meeting and registered under this Act for which purpose three copies of the amendment shall be forwarded to the Registrar as prescribed. (2) If the Registrar is satisfied that the proposed amendment- (i) is not contrary to the provisions of this Act and the Rules, (ii) does not conflict with co-operative principles, (iii) will promote the economic or social interest of the members of the society, (iv) is not inconsistent with the principles of social justice, he may register the amendment. (3) When the Registrar registers an amendment, he shall forward to the society a copy of the registered amendment together with a certificate signed by him and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been 19 2025:HHC:25335 duly registered. (4) Where the Registrar refuses to register an amendment of the bye-laws, of a co-operative society, thereof he shall communicate the order of refusal together with the reasons to the society. (5) Any amendment which is not disposed of by the Registrar within 90 days of its receipt, shall be deemed to have been registered under this Act and the provisions of sub-section (3) of this section shall apply to such amendment. (6) An amendment of the bye-laws of a co- operative society shall, unless it is expressed to come into operation on a particular day, come into force on the day on which it is registered.” 13. This Court firstly shall deal with the issue of the extension of the area of the Society by way of amendment in the Bye-laws, i.e., whether the By-laws of the Cooperative Society were amended in accordance with law, so as to extend the area of operation of the Society or not. 14. In terms of Section 11 of the 1968 Act, for an amendment in the Bye-laws to be valid, the same has to be 20 2025:HHC:25335 approved by the resolution of a General House and registered under the 1968 Act, for which purpose, three copies of the amendment shall be forwarded to the Registrar as prescribed. Sub-Clause (5) of Section 11 of the 1968 Act provides that any amendment which is not disposed of by the Registrar within 90 days of its receipt, shall be deemed to have been registered under the 1968 Act and the provisions of sub- Section (3) shall apply to such amendments. However, it has to be appreciated that for sub-Section (5) of Section 11 of the 1968 Act to come into picture, there has to be a compliance of sub-Section (1) of Section 11 of the 1968 Act in letter and spirit. 15. Section 11, as quoted hereinabove of the 1968 Act, deals with the amendment of Bye-laws of a Cooperative Society. Rule-8 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971 prescribes the procedure to be followed for amendment of Bye-laws of a Society. Rule-8 of the said Rules is quoted hereinbelow:- “8. Procedure to be followed for amendment of the bye-laws of a society - (1) Bye-laws may be made, altered or abrogated by a resolution passed at a general meeting of the society: 21 2025:HHC:25335 Provided that :- (a) due notice of any proposal to make, alter or abrogate the bye-laws is given to all the members in accordance with the bye-laws; (b) the resolution is passed by not less than two - thirds of the members present at the general meeting at which quorum shall be present as per rule 30; (c) a copy of existing bye-laws indicating the alterations proposed to be made, and three copies of the proposed amendments signed by two officers of the society, duly authorised, in this behalf are submitted to the Registrar with the copy of the resolution accompanied by :- (i) a statement of the Secretary of the society that the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) above have been fully complied with :- (ii) an application from the Secretary that the change in the bye-laws be registered. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (1) above, the State Government by a general or special order in writing, may alter or modify the conditions laid down above in respect of secondary societies and financing banks. 22 2025:HHC:25335 The rule specifically provides for a due notice of proposal to amend bye-laws to all the members of the society. Every resolution concerning amendment of bye-laws shall have to be carried out by not less than two-thirds of the members present in the general meeting, convened for the purpose. Under the rule application for registration of amendment shall be made by the Secretary to the Registrar. The application shall also be accompanied by the following documents :- 1. a copy of the existing bye-laws; 2. three copies of the proposed amendments which shall be signed by atleast two officers of the society duly authorised in this behalf by the general body meeting; 3. registration certificate if the amendments relate to the change in name or liability of the society; 4. certificate to be furnished by the Secretary of the Society; (i) that the amendments in the bye-laws have been made in the general meeting of the society in which quorum was present or in an adjourned general meeting of the society; (ii) that due notice to al the members alongwith agena (i.e. amendment of bye-laws) was given.” 16. Thus it is evident from Rule 8 that Bye-laws may be made, altered or abrogated by a resolution passed by a general 23 2025:HHC:25335 meeting of the Society, provided that due notice of any proposal to make, alter or abrogate the Bye-laws is given to all the Members in accordance with the Bye-laws and the resolution is passed by not less than 2/3rd of the Members present at the general meeting at which Coram shall be present as per Rule 30. The Rule further provides that a copy of existing Bye-laws indicating the alterations proposed to be made and three copies of the proposed amendments signed by two Officers of the Society, duly authorized, in this behalf are to be submitted to the Registrar with the copy of the resolution accompanied by a statement of the Secretary of the Society that the provisions of Clauses A and B of Rule 8 (1) of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971, have been fully complied with and there should also be an application from the Secretary that the change in the Bye-laws be registered. 17. In the present case, record demonstrates that this procedure was not followed at all. A perusal of the resolution of the General House dated 06.09.2011 demonstrates that in terms of Resolution No.5, purportedly it was resolved that the area of operation of Society is to be enhanced up to the entire 24 2025:HHC:25335 Tehsil Solan and the same was approved with majority. This resolution is appended with the petition as Annexure P-8. Annexure P-9 is the communication which has been sent by Mr. Raghuvinder Singh Mehta to Assistant Registrar, Solan on the subject “to extend area operation of Mehta Cooperative Transport Society” in which it was stated that the General House of the Society has been conducted on 06.09.2011 and in that meeting vide Resolution No.5, it was held by the majority of the Members of the Society that the area of the Society may be extended up to Tehsil Solan, District Solan, instead of Shamti and Shamlech and an addition in the Bye-laws of the Society may kindly be done. 18. This Court is of the considered view that this is no compliance of Section 11 of the 1968 Act and Rule-8 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971. In terms of Section 11 and Rule 8, the proposed Bye-law has to be approved in the manner provided in the Act and the Rules and, thereafter, a copy of the existing Bye-laws, indicating the alterations proposed to be made and three copies of the proposed amendments signed by two Officers of the Society duly 25 2025:HHC:25335 authorized in this behalf, are to be submitted to the Registrar with the copy of the resolution accompanied by a statement of the Secretary of the Society that the provisions of Clauses A and B of Rule 8 (1), have been complied with as well as an application from the Secretary that change in the Bye-laws be registered. 19. In the present case, nothing as mentioned hereinabove was done. There was no compliance of Rule 8(1) (c) and in fact this provision of the said Rule was violated with impunity. A simple letter i.e. Annexure P-10, appended with the petition, did not amount to carrying out a valid amendment in the Bye-laws of the Cooperative Society. That being the case, the provision of sub-Section (5) of Section 11 of the 1968 Act obviously was not attracted in the present case, because when the procedure prescribed for carrying out amendment was not followed in letter and spirit, obviously, there was no proposal for amending the Bye-law before the Registrar and, thus, there was nothing which was to be disposed of by the Registrar within 90 days of its receipt. 20. Therefore, the findings returned by the Secretary, 26 2025:HHC:25335 Corporation that there was no extension in the area of the operation of the Cooperative Society and no valid amendment was carried out in the Bye-laws, are correct findings because the Bye-laws in existence were not amended at all, on the basis of Resolution No.5 of the General House of the Society dated 06.09.2011, meaning thereby, that the area of the operation of the Society remained as it was in the original Bye-laws i.e. Shamti-Shamlech. 21. Now coming to the second issue, the Resolution in terms whereof, purportedly some of the private respondents herein, resigned from the Society i.e. Resolution dated 15.06.2016, Annexure P-12, demonstrates that on 15.06.2016, five resolutions were passed. However, whereas, first three resolutions were hand written by way of normal spacing between the lines of the resolutions, fourth and fifth resolutions were squeezed in the area left in between the space where the third resolution ended and where the page ended. Why so? The answer is obvious that this was way of interpolation by adding into this resolution something which was originally not resolved therein. This is evident from the fact that in terms of 27 2025:HHC:25335 the fourth purported resolution, Members of the Society namely Ruby, Mahinder, Nirja, Asha, Sameeta, Sonakshi and Meenakshi, expressed their desire to be Members till 31.03.2017 only and, thereafter, they requested that their membership should be ended and this request of theirs was accepted by the General House. Not only this, in terms of Resolution No.5, new Members Balram, Diwan, Rachna, were purportedly made Members with effect from 16.04.2017. Now incidentally, these persons who were made Members, were from areas outside the original area of the operation of the Society. In fact, the Society could not have enrolled any person as a Member of the Society, who was not a resident of the original area of operation of the Society and who was not enrolled as a Member in consonance with the provisions of the Bye-laws of the Society. In fact, it is not understood that after the first three resolutions were reduced into writing, what transpired so as to lead to a situation that a fourth resolution was purportedly passed, in which seven Members expressed their desire to suddenly give up their membership. There is no resignation of theirs on record. The procedure prescribed for 28 2025:HHC:25335 quitting the membership in the Bye-laws was not followed. In a hush-hush manner, certain new Members were introduced without any application of theirs being there, to be included as Members. All this shrouds Resolutions No.4 & 5 with doubt and suspicion. 22. As I have already observed hereinabove, there is a very serious doubt with regard to the authenticity of this Resolutions No.4 and 5, because it is not understood as to what was the necessity of squeezing these two resolutions in between the space that was available after third resolution ended at the end of the page. This obviously appears to be an act of interpolation in the record and apparently the record was forged to demonstrate that certain Members had voluntarily resigned. As already observed, there is no resignation on record of either of these Members and said Members have denied that they ever resigned. 23. Resolution dated 15.06.2016, as appended with the petition as Annexure P-12, is being photocopied hereinbelow, to demonstrate what has been observed by me hereinabove:- 29 2025:HHC:25335 30 2025:HHC:25335 31 2025:HHC:25335 24. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the Bye-laws of the Society, which are appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. Bye-law-7 onwards of the said Bye-laws deals with the mode and manner in which a person can be admitted as a Member and obviously same was not followed while admitting certain Members in terms of Resolution dated 15.06.2016. Besides this, otherwise also, these persons could not have been included as Members for the reason that they were not from the original area of operation of the Society. 25. Bye-law-14 of the Society provides that how a person shall cease to be a Member of the Society and Bye-law 14 reads as under:- “14. A person shall cease to be a member of the society in one of the more of the following circumstances:- (i) death; (ii) ceasing to hold atleast one share; (iii) withdrawal after six months notice to the Secretary of the society provided that the share/shares held by the member are disposed of in accordance with bye-law 11 and 12; (iv) permanent insanity; (v) declaration of bankruptcy;” 26. Thus, a Member, inter alia, can cease to be so after issuance of a notice to the Secretary by giving a notice of 6 32 2025:HHC:25335 months and despite the fact that this was the condition of the Bye-law-14, by way of an interpolation in the Resolution dated 15.06.2016, it was made to look as if certain Members had voluntarily resigned from their membership without complying with the formalities of Bye-law 14. This obviously makes the entire process suspicious, as has been observed by the Secretary, Cooperation also. 27. As this Court has held that there was no enlargement of the original area of operation of the Society because the original Bye-laws of the Society were never amended in accordance with law, obviously, the subsequent elections which were held on the basis of the votes of the persons who were wrongly and illegally made Members of the Society, were no elections in the eyes of law and holding of the said elections to be bad by the Secretary, Cooperation, cannot be said to be perversity. 28. Therefore, this Court holds that the findings returned by the Secretary, Cooperation on the counts, on which said Authority was directed by this Court to return findings, are correct findings, which are duly borne out from the record of the 33 2025:HHC:25335 case. 29. This Court would like to make an observation with regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed by the complainant was not a proper complaint as it was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. In the light of the perversities which have been found in the functioning of the Society and the manner in which the affairs thereof have been dealt with by the Office bearers, taking cognizance of the complaint revealing such illegalities, cannot be faulted with at all because during the course of the arguments of this case, petitioners could not demonstrate that the findings returned by the Secretary, Corporation, were perverse and contrary to record. It is clearly borne out that Secretary, Corporation, has returned the findings which are strictly based on the record and which are clearly borne out from the record and which demonstrate that the Office bearers of the petitioner-Society, who had filed this writ petition, in fact, were manipulating the affairs of the Society, obviously, with an ulterior motive. 30. Accordingly, in the light of the observations made 34 2025:HHC:25335 hereinabove, as this Court finds no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. CWP No. 10551 of 2024 31. This petition is disposed of in the light of the judgment of even date, in CWP No. 4548 of 2024. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 30, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)