# Prahlad Gond v. U.P. Co-operative Tribunal Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1078
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1002800 of 2001
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prahlad-gond-v-u-p-co-operative-tribunal-lko-ors-53823
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, the impugned order
dated 26.11.2025 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and the writ petition is partly
allowed to that extent.

27. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur for fresh consideration in
accordance with law, after affording petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing. The petitioner is
directed to submit a fresh representation to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur raising all the
grounds on the point of letter dated 29.09.2025 along with a certified copy of this order within four
weeks from today. In the event, petitioner moves such a representation, as directed hereinabove, the
District Magistrate concerned shall pass a reasoned order on the letter and decide the issue of
blacklisting and all ancillary issues within a further period of four weeks.

28. It is further provided that for a period of eight weeks or till decision is taken by the District
Magistrate, whichever is earlier, petitioner shall be entitled to participate in future tenders.

29. No order at to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1078
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1002800 of 2001

Prahlad Gond ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Co-operative Tribunal Lko & Ors....Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
Whether a writ petition in the nature of certiorari will lie against a Cooperative Society or it comes within the
meaning of the words 'other Authority' occurring in Article 226 of the Constitution?

Headnotes
A. Writ Law - Maintainability of writ petition - Constitution of India: Article 12, 226 - The writ
petition in the nature of certiorari will lie against a Co-operative Society only when such Society
has ingredient of an 'Authority' within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and not
otherwise. The following guidelines are culled out from the various decisions of the Supreme Court:-
1. The constitution of the Managing Body/Committee constitutes the functionaries of the Government.
2. There is an existence of deep and pervasive control of the management and policies of the Co-operative
Society by the Government.
3. The function of the Co-operative Society is of public importance and closely related to the Governmental
functions. 4. The financial control is by the Government or it provides financial aid controlling its affairs.
5. The violation of statutory rules applicable to the Society in regard to the service matters of its employees,
and
6. Statutory violations or non-compliance of it by an authority under the Act. (Para 13)
1 All. Prahlad Gond Vs. U.P. Co-operative Tribunal Lko & Ors.
1079
B. Mere statutory regulation under the Cooperative Societies Act or the fact that orders have
been passed by the Arbitrator and in the appeal by the Tribunal does not, by itself, confer
maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 against a private cooperative society in
matters arising out of contractual or service-related disputes. The respondent co-operative society is
a private co-operative society, who has established a bank in private capacity. In the entire writ petition, there
is no pleading or assertion that the respondent bank is an instrumentality of the State or is discharging any
public duty so as to fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. (Para 14)

C. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for adjudication of private disputes involving co-operative
societies unless the society is shown to be State or an instrumentality of State, or the action
complained of has a direct public law element. The present dispute is purely inter se between the
member/employee and the society, involving disputed questions of fact, for which the remedy lies elsewhere
and not u/Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 15)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Krishna Mohan Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No.2329 of 2019) (Para 3)
2. Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2019 (2) ILR Punjab and Haryana 1036 (Para 3)
3. Anand Prakash Vs. The Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another (Para 3)

List of Acts
Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
writ jurisdiction, constitution, state, instrumentality, cooperative, societies, authority, maintainability.

Appearances for Parties:
For Petitioner(s): Anuj Kudesia, Himanshu Shukla, Vikas Kumar Agrawal
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Kapil Muni Dubey, Rakesh Nigam, Sati Prasad Singh @ Satish Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Divesh Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for
State-respondent No.1 and Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated
29.5.2001, passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.92 of 2006 and order dated 20.9.1996,

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that the cooperative society, which is running the bank, is a private society, therefore, the writ petition is not
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his

(i) Krishna Mohan Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No.2329 of 2019)

(ii) Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others [2019 (2) ILR Punjab and
Haryana 1036]

(iii) Anand Prakash Vs. The Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing facts of the case, submitted that although this
is a private co-operative society, but he is challenging the order of the Arbitrator passed on
20.9.1996 and the order of the Tribunal.

5. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was posted as Class IV employee and
member of the society (respondent No.4). Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh was Secretary of the society
till he was suspended by the society. He was also posted in the Establishment Section of the Bank
and prepared the pay bills of the employees of the bank as well as made deductions from the salary
of the employees towards the repayment of loan taken by the employees from the society.

6. On 10.8.1994, the bank sanctioned credit limit to the society for the year 1994-95. On
20.8.1994, the list was submitted by the society to the Branch Manager of the bank showing the
amounts of loan outstanding against individual members of the society, which list was then
forwarded to the Senior Branch Manager of the bank.

7. On 2.9.1994, the Branch Manager of the bank sent the list dated 20.8.1994, prepared by the
Secretary to the Enquiry Officer, Special Investigation Branch Co-operative, Lucknow, which was
certified by the District Assistant Registrar, Basti. The Secretary of the society directed the
members to check the interest levied on loan amount, who had received the passbooks and in case
of any discrepancy, file objections, since the documents of the society were being checked by him
as the enquiry had commenced. The Secretary-Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh absconded with the
relevant records of the society.

8. The Chairman of the Enquiry Committee required Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh to produce
the record of the society, who did not handover the relevant record of the society, except some
records in respect of individual members upto the year 1986 and the balance sheet up to the year
1993-94. Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh forged and fabricated document dated 25.11.1994 to the
effect that he had furnished all the records of the society to Sri Hira Lal Mishra, Chairman of the
Enquiry Committee. The said document had never been signed by Sri Hira Lal Mishra.

9. On 18.10.1994, on detection of embezzlement, the auditors made a report to the District
Assistant Registrar, recommending the seizure of record and office of the society. On 27.10.1994,
the District Assistant Registrar issued order under Section 37 of the Act, appointing A.D.C.O.
instead of seizing the record, lodged F.I.R against Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh, who was then
suspended by the bank from the services. Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh did not deposit the amount
shown by him, which had been recovered from the members of the society. The society lodged
F.I.R. against Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh for embezzlement of Rs.50 Lakhs on 17.1.1995.
Detailed information regarding the act of Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh was sent to the District
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative society, Basti.

10. On 9.3.1995, demand notice was issued to the petitioner by the bank for an amount of
Rs.1,26,776/-. Thereafter, another demand notice was sent to the petitioner by the bank, showing
that no deductions have been made from his salary since 1991. The petitioner filed an application
under Section 70 before the Registrar, Co-operative societies, Lucknow. The bank filed reply,
admitting stoppage of deduction of loan from the petitioner's salary and the list dated 20.8.1994,
1 All. Prahlad Gond Vs. U.P. Co-operative Tribunal Lko & Ors.
1081
given by Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh wherein Nil outstanding loan was indicated against the name
of the petitioner.

11. Thereafter, the society also filed reply, admitting issuance of passbook by Sri Virendra
Bahadur Singh and the list dated 20.8.1994, indicating Nil outstanding loan against the name of the
petitioner. On 5.7.1996, the Arbitrator rejected the petitioner's application dated 21/22.2.1996 for
summoning the documents from Sri Virendra Bahadur Singh and the claim of the petitioner was
also dismissed. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, Sri
Virendra Bahadur Singh was dismissed from the service, after a departmental enquiry in which it
was found that he had embezzled an amount of Rs.58,58,403/-. Vide order dated 29.5.2001, appeal
of the petitioner was also dismissed.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, also placed reliance upon
a Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No.297 of 2025. Relevant paragraph is being quoted
below :-

"As we have rendered differing opinions, we frame the following questions/ points for
consideration by a Bench of such strength as Hon'ble the Chief Justice may deem fit to constitute
under Chapter VIII Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952:-

i. Whether, the order of learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.7497 of 2025 [Bahujan Nirbal
Varg Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] which is impugned in
Special Appeal No.297 of 2025 is without jurisdiction, in toto, or in part? If so, its consequences on
the question of maintainability of special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952 and merits of the issues involved therein.

ii. Whether the order passed by the writ court which is impugned in Special Appeal
No.297 of 2025 is beyond the scope of the writ petition?

iii. Which of the two opinions rendered by Members of the Division Bench in Special
Appeal No.297 of 2025 expresses the correct view? "

12. On perusal of the judgment aforesaid, it is evident that in the said judgment, the question
of passing of interlocutory order by the Tribunal as well as interim order passed in the writ petition
that whether the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
is not maintainable or against the interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal is maintainable or not,
no other question was referred to the Larger Bench, therefore, ratio of the judgment relied upon by
the petitioner's counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

13. For deciding the controversy, relevant paragraphs of the judgment relied upon by learned
counsel for the respondent No.5 are being quoted as under :-

(i) Krishna Mohan (Supra). Relevant paragraph is being quoted below :-
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"3. Sri. H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the writ petition. He has relied upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in case of
Vijay Bihari Srivastava v. U.P. Postal Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd., (2003) 1 UPLBEC 1. It was held as
under:?

"35. In the light of foregoing discussions, we answer question as to whether a writ petition in the
nature of certiorari will lie against a Co-operative Society or it comes within the meaning of the words
?other Authority? occurring in Article 226 of the Constitution, as follows:

The writ petition in the nature of certiorari will lie against a Co-operative Society only when such
Society has ingredient of an ?Authority? within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and not
otherwise. The following guidelines are culled out from the various decisions of the Supreme Court, referred
to above:?

1. The constitution of the Managing Body/Committee constitutes the functionaries of the
Government.

2. There is an existence of deep and pervasive control of the management and policies of the Cooperative Society by the Government.

3. The function of the Co-operative Society is of public importance and closely related to the
Governmental functions.

4. The financial control is by the Government or it provides financial aid controlling its affairs.

5. The violation of statutory rules applicable to the Society in regard to the service matters of its
employees, and

6. Statutory violations or non-compliance of it by an authority under the Act.?"

(ii) Kulwinder Singh (Supra). Relevant paragraph is being quoted below :-

"7. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out even one
of the factor necessary so as to treat respondent No. 3 as the instrumentality of the State. It has not been
shown to this Court whether any finances have been extended by the Government of Haryana to respondent
No. 3-Cooperative Society, or any of the officer is controlling the respondent No. 3-Cooperative Society
administratively in any manner. None of the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Satrughan Nishad's case (supra), has been fulfilled in the present case so as to treat the said Cooperative
Society as instrumentality of the State so as to amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court."

(iii) Anand Prakash (Supra). Relevant paragraph is being quoted below :-

"7. The counsel for the petitioner during the hearing has referred to:

(i) W.B. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Paritosh Bagchi, (1995) 6 SCC 562.
1 All. Shiv Darshan Vs. Addl. Collector F/R & Ors.
1083

(ii) Deokinandan Prashar v. The Agra District Co-operative Bank, (1973) 3 SCC 303 : AIR 1972
SC 2497.

to contend that in those cases writ petitions against the Co-operative Banks were maintained.
However, neither of the two judgments is found to contain any discussion on the maintainability of the writ
petition. The Supreme Court in the judgment cited by me above has not ruled out the possibility of
maintainability of a writ petition against a Co-operative Society but has laid down the tests therefor. It may
be that the Co-operative Banks in the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner satisfied the said tests
and thus the issue of maintainability of the writ petition was not raised. However, merely because writ
petitions against another Co-operative Bank were entertained, would still not justify the maintainability of
the present writ petition without the petitioner establishing before this Court that the tests are satisfied qua
the respondent and which has not been done by the petitioner inspite of opportunity."

14. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent co-operative society is a private cooperative society, who has established a bank in private capacity. In the entire writ petition, there is no
pleading or assertion that the respondent bank is an instrumentality of the State or is discharging any public
duty so as to fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Mere statutory regulation under
the Co-operative Societies Act or the fact that orders have been passed by the Arbitrator and in the appeal by
the Tribunal does not, by itself, confer maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 against a private
co-operative society in matters arising out of contractual or service-related disputes.

15. The Supreme Court as well as this Court in catena of judgments have consistently held that writ
jurisdiction cannot be invoked for adjudication of private disputes involving co-operative societies unless the
society is shown to be State or an instrumentality of State, or the action complained of has a direct public law
element. The present dispute is purely inter se between the member/employee and the society, involving
disputed questions of fact, for which the remedy lies elsewhere and not under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent No.5 are fully applicable to the case in hand.

16. In view of the fact that in none of the paragraphs of the writ petition, it has been incorporated that
present co-operative society is the instrumentality of the State and in view of the aforesaid facts and settled
legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1083
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 3000122 of 2002

Shiv Darshan ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Coleector F/R & Ors. ...Respondents