Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors. v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & Ors. (2026)
Table of Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Factual Background
- 3 Issues for Determination
- 4 Maintainability of the Writ Petitions
- 5 Whether Co-operative Societies Are ‘State’ Under Article 12
- 6 Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy
- 7 Nature of the Rights Involved: Right to Vote and Right to Contest
- 8 Validity and Nature of the Impugned Bye-laws
- 9 Decision
- 10 Conclusion
Introduction
In a significant pronouncement, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution by holding that co-operative societies are not “State” and that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in disputes relating to their internal governance and electoral processes. The Court emphasized that such disputes must be resolved within the statutory framework provided under the relevant co-operative laws.
Factual Background
The present appeal arose from a dispute concerning the validity of certain bye-laws framed by District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions in the State of Rajasthan. These unions form part of a three-tier co-operative structure comprising primary societies at the village level, district unions at the intermediate level, and a state federation at the apex level.
The impugned bye-laws prescribed eligibility conditions for contesting elections to the management committees of the District Milk Unions. These conditions included requirements relating to audit classification, minimum supply of milk, and continuity of operations of the member societies. Certain members of primary co-operative societies challenged these bye-laws by filing writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and declared the impugned bye-laws to be ultra vires the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. This view was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench. Aggrieved by these decisions, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
The principal issues that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court were whether the District Milk Unions could be regarded as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, whether writ petitions under Article 226 were maintainable in respect of disputes concerning the internal governance and elections of co-operative societies, and whether the High Court was justified in examining and invalidating the impugned bye-laws.
Maintainability of the Writ Petitions
At the outset, the Supreme Court examined the maintainability of the writ petitions. The Court observed that although the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 is wide and can, in certain circumstances, be exercised even against non-State entities, such jurisdiction is ordinarily invoked only when the impugned action involves a public law element.
The Court held that a writ would lie against a non-State entity only where it performs public duties or discharges functions of a public nature, or where there is a breach of statutory or constitutional obligations of a public character. However, disputes relating to the internal management, governance, and electoral processes of co-operative societies do not ordinarily attract writ jurisdiction.
In the present case, the dispute pertained to the validity of bye-laws governing eligibility to contest elections, which was essentially a matter of internal administration of the co-operative societies. The Court concluded that such disputes lack any public law element and are therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Whether Co-operative Societies Are ‘State’ Under Article 12
The Court proceeded to examine whether the respondent societies could be regarded as “State” within the meaning of Article 12. Applying the settled tests laid down in judicial precedents, the Court emphasized that for an entity to qualify as “State”, it must be subject to deep and pervasive control of the Government, or must be financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by the State.
Upon examining the nature and functioning of the District Milk Unions, the Court found that they are autonomous, member-driven bodies governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, the rules framed thereunder, and their own bye-laws. The State exercises only regulatory and supervisory control through authorities such as the Registrar and the State Co-operative Election Authority.
The Court held that such regulatory oversight does not amount to deep and pervasive control. Accordingly, the respondent societies cannot be characterized as “State” or instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12.
Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy
The Court further observed that the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 provides a comprehensive and self-contained mechanism for the resolution of disputes relating to co-operative societies. In particular, disputes concerning elections are expressly covered under Section 58 of the Act, which provides for adjudication by the Registrar.
The Act also provides a complete hierarchy of remedies, including appeals and revisions. The Court noted that the writ petitioners had failed to avail themselves of these statutory remedies and had directly approached the High Court under Article 226.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that where a statute provides an effective and efficacious remedy, the High Court should ordinarily refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, such as violation of fundamental rights or lack of jurisdiction, the statutory remedy must be exhausted.
Nature of the Rights Involved: Right to Vote and Right to Contest
The Supreme Court also examined the nature of the rights involved in the present dispute. It reiterated that the right to vote and the right to contest elections are not fundamental rights but are purely statutory in nature.
The Court drew a distinction between the two rights, observing that while the right to vote enables participation in the electoral process, the right to contest elections is subject to eligibility conditions and qualifications prescribed by law.
In the present case, the impugned bye-laws did not restrict the right to vote but merely prescribed eligibility criteria for contesting elections. Such regulation was held to be permissible within the statutory framework.
Validity and Nature of the Impugned Bye-laws
The Court further held that the impugned bye-laws were in the nature of eligibility conditions rather than disqualifications. These conditions were designed to ensure that only active and participating member societies were represented in the management of the co-operative unions.
The Court observed that such provisions promote efficiency, accountability, and the proper functioning of the co-operative structure. The bye-laws were found to be consistent with the provisions and objectives of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001.
Decision
In light of the above analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Rajasthan High Court. It was held that the writ petitions were not maintainable, that the respondent co-operative societies do not fall within the ambit of “State” under Article 12, and that the disputes in question must be resolved through the statutory mechanism provided under the Act.
Conclusion
The judgment reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in matters concerning co-operative societies and underscores the importance of respecting the autonomy of such institutions. It also reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in the absence of a public law element, particularly where an effective statutory remedy is available.
