IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10450/2026 Decided on: 09.07.2026 Kamal Chand & Ors. …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel and Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The petitioners are members of respondent No.4-C.D. Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Gohar at Dari, District Mandi, H.P. The election for the Directors/Board of Directors of the Society has been scheduled vide Annexure P-5. Petitioners' grievance pertains to the election zones/wards carved out by the respondents in March and May, 2026. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.3 had preferred a representation to respondent No.2-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, raising the grievance that the zones stood validly determined by the elected Board of Directors, whereafter the Assistant Registrar, Mandi- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent No.3 had also issued the election programme on 28.06.2025. The determination of the zones, thus, had become final and operative for conducting the election, however, the same was postponed. In the interregnum, fresh exercise of carving out the election zones was undertaken by the respondents in March, 2026, which resulted in a change of the election zones. Such change, as canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners, is not in consonance with Section 37 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 and Rule 4 of Appendix-A of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971, more particularly sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, which provides that the zones shall be constituted in such a manner that members from contiguous areas are included in a particular zone and, where such contiguity is not discernible, the zones shall be constituted as per the serial numbers of the members in the membership register. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid provisions have been completely breached by the respondents while carrying out fresh exercise of carving out the zones during the year 2026; Their representations have also not been decided by the respondents. 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General has, though, placed on record office instructions dated 08.07.2026 from respondent No.2 conveying that petitioner No.3's representation stood decided on 30.06.2026. However, the so-called decision dated 30.06.2026, which has also been appended along with the office instructions, does not 3 clarify as to whether any decision was indeed taken on petitioner No.3’s representation regarding carving out of election zones. Even assuming that the said office letter had decided petitioner No.3 representation (Annexure P-6), the so-called decision is still not a decision on the merits of the matter. The said office letter only conveys that the petitioner had been issued certain notices with reference to certain letters and that the petitioners did not remain present. Two letters issued by respondent No.4-Society, both dated 08.07.2026, have also been placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner. In one letter, the petitioners were directed to attend the office of respondent No.3 along with their complaints/representations and supporting documents pertaining to the division of zones, whereas the other letter of the even date cancels the first letter, though, by the second letter, the petitioners were also directed to pursue the matter before respondent No.3. Be that as it may. In view of the facts that have come on record, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the instructions placed on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation of petitioner No.3 (Annexure P-6), as well as any other representations, if any, preferred by the petitioners before respondent No.2 pertaining to their grievance against carving out of the election zones by respondent No.4 during the year 2026, in accordance with law, within one week from 4 today, i.e. by 14.07.2026. Due opportunity of hearing shall also be afforded to the petitioners as well as all other stakeholders. Copy of order so passed be also communication to the petitioners. In view of above, the instant petition to stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 9th July, 2026 (rohit)