2026:HHC:16777-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6688 of 2022 alongwith CWP No.8395 of 2022 Decided on: 14th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.6688 of 2022 Baghal Land Looser Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.8395 of 2022 Baghal Land Looser Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, in both the matters. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2 in both the matters. Mr. Sunil Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3 in both the matters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:16777-DB Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CWP No.6688 of 2022 Heard and considered the case file. 2. The case:- 2(i). Respondent No.3 moved an application on 27.07.2020 to the petitioner-Society seeking extension of permission granted to him on 09.04.2010 by the petitioner- Society for purchasing one additional Single Axle Vehicle. Respondent No.3 in the alternative, requested for allowing him to ply Multi Axle Vehicle by surrendering the Single Axle Vehicle being plied by him. Certain other requests were also made. It was also stated by respondent No.3 in the aforesaid application that he was member of the petitioner- Society since 13.07.2004; He was plying one Single Axle Vehicle, though as per Bye-Laws of the petitioner-Society, a member could ply three Single Axle Vehicles or one Multi Axle Vehicle and one Single Axle Vehicle. 2(ii). According to respondent No.3, he was granted permission by the petitioner-Society on 09.04.2010 to purchase one additional Single Axle Vehicle, but due to financial constraints faced by him at that point of time, he could not purchase the additional Single Axle Vehicle as per the permission granted. Respondent No.3 also mentioned in 3 2026:HHC:16777-DB the application that a Committee constituted by the petitioner-Society had taken a decision on 24.05.2015 for granting permission to purchase Multi Axle Vehicles to those members of the Society, who were willing to surrender their two Single Axle Vehicles being plied with the Society. Another subsequent decision statedly taken by the petitioner-Society on 12.09.2015 was also highlighted. 2(iii). Petitioner-Society did not accept respondent No.3’s application. Vide its letter dated 30.07.2020, petitioner informed respondent No.3 that he could not be allowed to ply second Single Axle Vehicle on the basis of permission granted to him ten years back, i.e. on 09.04.2010, as in the general house convened by the petitioner-Society on 10.06.2017, a complete ban was imposed for plying new vehicles. 2(iv). This led respondent No.3 to institute a petition under Section 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (in short ‘the Act’) before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Solan on 13.08.2020. The Arbitrator-Inspector (Audit) Co-operative Societies, Solan dismissed the petition on 26.04.2021, citing ban on purchase of new vehicles imposed by the general house of the petitioner-Society on 10.06.2017. The Arbitrator also 4 2026:HHC:16777-DB held that respondent No.3 was granted permission to purchase one additional Single Axle Vehicle in the year 2010 because at that time, there was shortage of trucks, but at present (26.04.2021), more than sufficient fleet of vehicles was available with the petitioner-Society, but work was deficient. 2(v). Being aggrieved, respondent No.3 preferred appeal under Section 93 of the Act. His appeal was allowed on 05.03.2022 with the reasoning that petitioner while granting permission to respondent No.3 on 09.04.2010 to ply second Single Axle Vehicle, had not fixed any timelines for utilizing the permission for purchasing the said vehicle. The permission granted on 09.04.2010 had never been revoked by the petitioner-Society. The same, therefore, has to be treated as continuing to remain in force. Respondent No.3’s appeal against order dated 26.04.2021 was accordingly allowed and the petitioner-Society was directed to give permission to respondent No.3 for plying Multi Axle Vehicle. It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner-Society has instituted this writ petition, assailing the order dated 05.03.2022. 5 2026:HHC:16777-DB 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has referred to about six instances in the reply filed by him, where members of the petitioner-Society had been permitted to ply vehicles after 10.06.2017. These six instances cited by respondent No.3 have been explained by the petitioner in its rejoinder that these were cases where members of the petitioner-Society did not have even one truck/vehicle with them. Therefore, such six members of the Society were permitted to ply vehicles despite ban imposed by the general house on plying of new vehicles on 10.06.2017 and this recourse was adopted after obtaining orders from the competent authority. 4. It is a matter of record that respondent No.3 had been permitted by the petitioner-Society on 09.04.2010 to ply a second Single Axle Vehicle. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 did not utilize the aforesaid permission for almost ten years. It was on 27.07.2020 that he moved application to the petitioner for purchasing/plying vehicles in light of permission granted to him on 09.04.2010. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has not disputed that in the interregnum, the resolution passed by the general house of the petitioner-Society on 10.06.2017 had come into force, in terms of which, a complete ban was imposed 6 2026:HHC:16777-DB upon plying of new vehicles in the petitioner-Society. The resolution admittedly is still in force. Given this, it has to be held that the permission granted to respondent No.3 on 09.04.2010 lost its relevance after 10.06.2017. Permission granted on 09.04.2010 cannot run in perpetuity. The same could not have survived after 10.06.2017 in view of ban imposed by the general house on buying/plying of new vehicles. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of resolution No.3, dated 14.05.2026, which reads as under (English translation as provided by learned counsel for the petitioner):- “Today, on 14.05.2026, the meeting of The Baghal Land Losers Transport Cooperative Society Limited, Darlaghat, was held under the chairmanship/ president ship of Chairman Shri Jagdish Thakur, and the following proceedings were carried out with quorum of was 4/4. Discussion regarding the cases pending in the Hon'ble High Court bearing CWP No.6688 & 8395/2022. Discussion was held regarding the matters CWP No.6688 & 8395, pending in the Hon'ble High Court, and other pending in other Courts were also discussed and further there is a demand of the members in the society that permission for induction of second vehicle/ token be also granted. After detailed deliberation, unanimously decision was taken that the issue involved in above-mentioned case numbers CWP No.6688 & 8395 shall be placed in the General Body meeting of the society, and after discussion on such other issues in general house appropriate decision shall be taken. On this subject, the General house meeting shall be convened within three months. 7 2026:HHC:16777-DB During the tenure of the previous executive body of the society, in the General Body meeting of 2017, restrictions regarding new membership and new token/ vehicle was imposed and now this issue shall be brought in the coming general house and appropriate policy shall be formulated keeping in view the interest of the members. Accepted. Certified that the copy as per the original is true and correct, and this copy of the proceedings is available in the records of the society. Sd/- Accountant” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the fact that respondent No.3 had been permitted to ply Single Axle Vehicle/Truck on 09.04.2010 and he could not utilize that permission for more than a decade, the petitioner-Society in terms of above resolution, has agreed to place his case for plying of additional vehicle in the general house of petitioner-Society, which shall be convened within three months, where his case shall be considered alongwith other pending cases. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.03.2022 (Annexure P/2) is set aside. However, keeping in view the resolution dated 14.05.2026 passed by the petitioner-Society and the related submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner- Society, the petitioner is directed to abide by the above assurance given in the resolution by convening its general 8 2026:HHC:16777-DB house within three months from today for considering the case of respondent No.3 for plying additional vehicle in terms of his request. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. CWP No.8395 of 2022 Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that facts of this case are almost similar to the facts of CWP No.6688 of 2022 and that in the instant case also, respondent No.3 would be satisfied if his case is also directed to be considered by the petitioner-Society in its general house in terms of resolution dated 14.05.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to above prayer and submits that in terms of the aforesaid resolution dated 14.05.2026, the petitioner- Society has already undertaken to consider the case of respondent No.3 in this writ petition as well alongwith the case of respondent No.3 in CWP No.6688 of 2022. In view of above, the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 (Annexure P/2) is set aside. The directions issued in CWP No.6688 of 2022 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case as well. 9 2026:HHC:16777-DB The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 14, 2026 Judge Mukesh