Interim Committee Of Management Cannot Induct New Society Members Or Remove Existing Ones: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an Interim Committee of Management appointed under Section 29(4-B) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 has no power to enrol new members or remove existing members of a co-operative society. A resolution by which it purports to do so is a nullity, and the Registrar cannot give it effect in exercise of his powers under Section 128 of the Act.

Under Section 29(4-C), an interim Committee exercises the powers of the Management Committee subject to the directions of the Registrar. Section 128 permits the Registrar to annul a resolution of the committee of management or the general body of a society which, in his opinion, is not covered by the objects of the society or contravenes the Act, the rules or the bye-laws.

The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,

“The statutory scheme makes it clear that an Interim Committee is only a temporary arrangement for managing the routine affairs of the Society and is not vested with independent authority to alter the composition of the General Body by inducting new members or removing existing members.”

The last election to the Committee of Management of the petitioner-society, a primary housing co-operative society, was held in 2021. The Interim Committee appointed on 10.03.2026 by the Additional Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lucknow was restrained by the very order constituting it from inducting or removing members of the General Body.

By a resolution dated 21.07.2026, the Interim Committee nevertheless resolved to remove 22 members enrolled in 2022 and sought permission to induct 13 new members. The Additional Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar acted on that resolution on 27.08.2026, and the appointment of the Secretary of the Society was declared void. The petitioners urged that an Interim Committee is a stop-gap arrangement bereft of such power, and that no ingredient of Section 128 was made out.

Counsel for respondent ultimately conceded that an Interim Committee has no such power and that its resolution ought not to have been acted upon.

Noting that the Registrar had himself forbidden the induction and removal of members while constituting the Interim Committee, the Court held,

“The functioning of an interim committee is regulated being subject to direction issued by the Registrar, who himself prohibited induction of new members and removal of existing members. Thus, the ratification of resolution removing existing members is beyond the competence and powers of the Registrar in terms of section 128 of the Act, 1965.”

Holding that the Interim Committee had transgressed its authority in examining the 2022 resolutions and resolving the removal of the members enrolled that year, the Court held its resolution to be a nullity and respondent no. 3 to have erred in acting upon it under Section 128. The further prayer that petitioner no. 2 be permitted to continue as Secretary was refused, the Interim Committee being presently functional.

The order dated 27.08.2026 was accordingly quashed and the writ petition partly allowed, with liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in independent exercise of powers under Section 128, without giving effect to any resolution of the Interim Committee.