1 2026:CGHC:23647-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 462 of 2026 Kulwant Chawla (Dead) Through Lrs Guruvansh Singh Chawla S/o Late Shri Kulwant Chawla, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Station Road Mahasamund, Police Station And Tehsil- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Original Petitioner- Shri Kulwant Chawla, S/o Late Shri Hara Singh Chawla, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Station Road, Near Vijaya Bank Mahasamund, Police Station And Tehsil- Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Co- Operative Societies, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Registrar Co-Operative Societies, State Of Chhattisgarh, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Additional Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Near The Office Of Commissioner Revenue, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Having Office Infront Of Lal Ganga Shoping Complex, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5. Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 6. Sub Registrar Co-Operative Societies District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 7. Authorized Officer/ President Zila Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.06.15 17:43:35 +0530 2 8. Rajya Sahkari Nirvachan Aayog Raipur, Through- Its Secretary, Collectorate Square Infront Of Dr. Br Ambedkar Murti, District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15 .06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the orders dated 06.01.2026 and 16.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1028 of 2016, Kulwant Chawla vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, and MCC No. 360 of 2026, Kulwant Chawla (Dead) through LRs. Guruvansh Singh Chawla vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, respectively, whereby the writ petition and the MCC were dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a manifest error in dismissing WPC 3 No.1028/2016 by order dated 06.01.2026 solely on the premise that the matter pertained to election of Zila Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Mahasamund and that the original petitioner had expired during the pendency of the writ petition. It is submitted that the writ petition was not confined merely to the issue of election. The principal challenge in the writ petition was directed against the order dated 01.04.2016 whereby a Liquidator was appointed in respect of Zila Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Mahasamund, and consequential reliefs were sought against the said action. 4. Learned counsel submits that the original petitioner, late Shri Kulwant Chawla, had challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 01.04.2016 on the ground that the same was contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The writ petition raised substantial questions regarding the validity of the liquidation proceedings and the appointment of the Liquidator under Sections 69 and 70 of the Act of 1960. Therefore, the controversy involved in the writ petition survived even after the demise of the original petitioner and could not have been treated as having become infructuous merely because the election issue was also one of the consequential reliefs sought therein. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner expired on 16.04.2021 and an application for substitution of his legal heir was duly filed and remained on record. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge did 4 not consider the said application while passing the order dated 06.01.2026. The dismissal of the writ petition without adjudicating the pending application for substitution has resulted in serious prejudice to the rights and interests of the legal heir. He further submitted that the appellant, being the son and legal heir of the deceased petitioner, has also been recognized and nominated under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, ‘Act of 1960’). The appellant was nominated as President of the Society by the competent authority vide order dated 24.08.2021 and subsequently by communication dated 13.01.2026 issued from the office of the Commissioner, Co-operative and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh. These documents were specifically brought on record before the learned Single Judge in MCC No.360/2026. Despite the same, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was not only the legal representative of the deceased petitioner, but was also duly recognized by the competent statutory authorities to represent the affairs of the Society. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge further erred in rejecting MCC No.360/2026 by order dated 16.04.2026. It is contended that the application for recall clearly demonstrated that the writ petition involved issues relating to winding up of the Society and appointment of a Liquidator, which have direct bearing upon the rights, assets and liabilities of the members of the Society. These issues were never adjudicated on merits. Consequently, dismissal of the recall application has resulted in failure of justice. He 5 also submits that Section 70 of the Act of 1960 deals with appointment of a Liquidator only after a valid order for winding up of a society has been passed under Section 69 of the Act of 1960. The statutory scheme further contemplates compliance with the requirements of enquiry and other procedural safeguards prescribed under the Act. According to the appellant, these mandatory conditions precedent were not satisfied before issuance of the impugned order dated 01.04.2016 appointing the Liquidator. Therefore, the legality of the said order required adjudication on merits by the learned Single Judge. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel, appearing fro the appellant that the formation and registration of Zila Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Mahasamund had already attained finality. The Society was registered under Section 9 of the Act of 1960. The registration and formation of the Society were challenged before the appellate authority by Zila Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Raipur. However, the appeal was dismissed by the competent appellate authority vide order dated 23.01.2008 holding that the formation and registration of Zila Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Mahasamund were legal and valid. The said order was never challenged thereafter and consequently attained finality. In such circumstances, the subsequent action leading to appointment of a Liquidator required judicial scrutiny in the writ proceedings. He also contended that the rights involved in the writ petition are not purely personal to the deceased petitioner. The Society possesses movable and immovable assets, bank accounts and other properties in which members of the Society have substantial interests. One such property is 6 land situated at Village Pitiyajhar, Tehsil and District Mahasamund bearing Khasra No.62/20/1 admeasuring 2160 sq. ft., purchased through a registered sale deed dated 26.10.2012. The rights and obligations concerning such assets cannot be left unresolved merely on account of the death of the original petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that Section 26 of the Act of 1960 specifically recognizes the right of a nominee, heir or legal representative to succeed to the share and interest of a deceased member. The statutory scheme thus contemplates continuation and representation of the rights and interests of a deceased member through his nominee or legal representative. The appellant, being the legal heir as well as the nominated representative, was therefore fully entitled to prosecute the proceedings and seek adjudication of the issues raised in the writ petition. He submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the scope and effect of Section 26 of the Act of 1960 while dismissing the writ petition and subsequently rejecting the recall application. The impugned orders have resulted in leaving unresolved the issues relating to the assets, liabilities and statutory rights of the members of the Society and have caused grave prejudice to the appellant and other stakeholders. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that both the orders dated 06.01.2026 and 16.04.2026 deserve to be set aside. It is prayed that the writ petition be restored to its original number and be heard and decided on merits after bringing the appellant on record as 7 the legal representative and nominee of the deceased petitioner, so that the legality and validity of the order dated 01.04.2016 appointing the Liquidator may be adjudicated in accordance with law. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned orders and submits that no interference is called for in the present appeal. It is submitted that the sole petitioner expired during the pendency of the writ petition and the dispute raised therein pertained to the affairs and election of the Co-operative Society. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly held that nothing survived for adjudication. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that the MCC seeking recall of the order dated 06.01.2026 was not maintainable as it had been filed on behalf of a deceased person. It is contended that the appellant cannot claim an automatic right to continue the writ proceedings merely on the basis of being the legal heir of the deceased petitioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed both the writ petition as well as the MCC and the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material available on record. 13. The undisputed facts reveal that the original writ petitioner, namely, Kulwant Chawla, had filed WPC No.1028 of 2016 challenging the order dated 01.04.2016 and seeking, inter alia, a direction for conducting election of the Board of Directors of Zila Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Mahasamund. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 8 sole petitioner expired on 16.04.2021. Thereafter, the writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.01.2026 upon being informed that the matter related to election of the Co-operative Society and that the sole petitioner had expired. 14. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid approach adopted by the learned Single Judge. It is well settled that disputes pertaining to election and the right to contest or participate therein are essentially personal in nature unless the statute specifically provides otherwise. The cause espoused by the original petitioner in the present case was intrinsically connected with the affairs and election of the Society. Upon the death of the sole petitioner, the lis, as originally framed, ceased to survive in its existing form. 15. The record further reveals that after dismissal of the writ petition, MCC No.360 of 2026 was filed seeking recall of the order dated 06.01.2026. The said application was admittedly filed on behalf of a person who was no longer alive. The learned Single Judge has specifically recorded that the affidavit accompanying the application was sworn by Guruvansh Singh Chawla, son of the deceased petitioner, and that the Vakalatnama was also executed by a person who was not the original petitioner in the writ proceedings. 16. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge rightly observed that an application for restoration or recall could not be maintained in the name of a deceased person. Unless the legal representative was first brought on record in accordance with law and 9 his entitlement to continue the proceedings was duly recognized, the application itself was not maintainable. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in examining the maintainability of the MCC before entering into the merits of the controversy. 17. We are also unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 1960 automatically conferred upon him a right to continue the writ proceedings. Section 26 merely deals with transfer of share or interest of a deceased member and payment of dues to a nominee, heir or legal representative. The said provision neither provides for automatic substitution in judicial proceedings nor creates an independent right to continue a writ petition which otherwise stood concluded on account of the death of the sole petitioner. 18. The appellant has sought to contend that issues relating to liquidation, assets and liabilities of the Society survive notwithstanding the death of the original petitioner. However, the fact remains that the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the basis of the nature of the dispute brought before the Court and the death of the sole petitioner. Once the writ petition stood dismissed and no legally maintainable application for recall was before the Court, the learned Single Judge committed no error in declining to reopen the proceedings. 19. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant cannot derive an automatic right to prosecute the writ petition merely on the basis of his alleged nomination as President of the Society or as legal heir of the 10 deceased petitioner. Any independent right available to the appellant under the statute is required to be worked out in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. Such alleged rights do not, by themselves, render the recall application maintainable. 20. We are therefore of the considered view that the learned Single Judge rightly held that the MCC was not maintainable and that no sufficient ground was made out for recalling the order dated 06.01.2026. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge are based upon the facts available on record and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or patent illegality warranting interference in an intra-Court appeal. 21. Consequently, we find no merit in the present writ appeal. The order dated 06.01.2026 passed in WPC No.1028 of 2016 as well as the order dated 16.04.2026 passed in MCC No.360 of 2026 are affirmed. 22. The writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan