Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementConstitution of India

Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors. v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & Ors., 2026

The court held that Internal disputes of co-operative societies, absent public law elements, are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Supreme Court of India·11 April 2026
Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors. v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & Ors., 2026
Constitution of India
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

11 April 2026

Judges

Justice B. V. Nagarathna & Justice R. Mahadevan

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The dispute arose regarding elections to the Management Committee (Board of Directors) of District Milk Unions in Rajasthan.

  • Certain members challenged specific bye-laws prescribing eligibility criteria for contesting elections.

  • A Single Judge of the High Court declared the bye-laws ultra vires, which was affirmed by a Division Bench.

  • The appellants (not parties in the writ proceedings) approached the Supreme Court.

  • The primary contention was that the High Court wrongly exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

  • The District Milk Unions were argued to be independent co-operative societies, not “State” under Article 12.

  • The dispute essentially related to internal governance and electoral processes of the society.

  • A statutory dispute resolution mechanism already existed under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001.

Issues

  1. Whether District Milk Unions qualify as “State” or “instrumentality of State” under Article 12 of the Constitution?

  2. Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked in disputes relating to internal governance and elections of co-operative societies?

  3. Whether the High Court can bypass statutory remedies provided under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001?

Held

  • District Milk Unions are not State under Article 12.

  • Writ jurisdiction not maintainable in purely internal disputes of co-operative societies.

  • Statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching High Courts.

  • High Court’s interference was erroneous.

Analysis

  • The judgment reinforces limits of judicial review under Article 226.

  • It clarifies the distinction between public law and private/internal disputes.

  • The Court applied established tests from cases like:

    • Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi

    • Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

    • Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas

  • It strengthens the doctrine of alternative remedy, discouraging direct writ petitions.

  • The ruling protects autonomy of co-operative societies from excessive judicial interference.

  • It also reiterates that right to vote and contest elections is not a fundamental right, but statutory.