Case Background
The case concerns Manihari Primary Agriculture Credit Society (PACS), Block Bhabua, in district Kaimur, Bihar. The petitioner is a shareholder of the PACS and was elected as its Chairman.
Elections to the Managing Committee of this PACS were held on 27.11.2024, and the results were declared on 28.11.2024. These elections were conducted in accordance with the notification issued by the Election Authority.
Through this process, 11 persons were elected as members of the Managing Committee, and the petitioner became the Chairman. The Managing Committee thus formed was an elected body representing the members of the cooperative society.
After the general election, seven elected members submitted their resignation. According to the petitioner, this created a serious impediment to the functioning of the PACS and rendered the society practically non-functional.
The petitioner’s stand was that the Managing Committee is the competent authority to accept or reject the resignation of its members. He asserted that the seven members did not submit their resignation before the competent authority, and he claimed that this was in gross violation of the law laid down by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 15746 of 2022.
In this backdrop, the Cooperative Extension Officer conducted some form of enquiry and prepared a report. This report was then sent to the District Cooperative Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua.
On the basis of this report, the District Cooperative Officer issued Memo No. 604 dated 26.04.2025. By this memo, the Managing Committee of Manihari PACS, Block Bhabua, was superseded, and an Administrator was appointed to manage the society.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12941 of 2025. He challenged Memo No. 604 dated 26.04.2025 on the ground that the Managing Committee was superseded without following due process of law and that the democratic structure of the society was undermined.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman on 18.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader (26) for the State were heard.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the supersession of the Managing Committee by Memo No. 604 dated 26.04.2025 was arbitrary and illegal. He argued that the Cooperative Extension Officer, whose report formed the basis of the impugned order, did not conduct any proper enquiry at the level of the Managing Committee.
According to the petitioner, the Cooperative Extension Officer did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the seven purportedly resigned members or to the remaining members, including the Chairman. Despite this, the report was treated as an ex parte report, and on that basis, the elected members were superseded and an Administrator was appointed.
The petitioner emphasised that this was a unique situation where elected members of a democratic body were prevented from conducting the affairs of the society. He sought interference from the Patna High Court to protect the democratic process within the PACS.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel fairly submitted that Section 56 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 (referred to as “the Act of 1935”) provides a revisional power to the Registrar. He explained that he had approached the High Court directly because, in his view, the matter was urgent.
The State’s counsel responded by pointing out that the Act prescribes a six-month limitation period for filing a revision before the Registrar under Section 56. He further submitted that the Registrar has no power to revise any order against which an appeal is provided under the Act.
After hearing both sides, the Court examined the relevant provisions of the Act of 1935, especially Section 41 and Section 56.
The Court observed that under Section 41(5) of the Act of 1935, the Registrar is empowered to dissolve the Managing Committee of a registered society in a particular situation. That situation arises where the majority of the members and elected office bearers of the Managing Committee resign from their membership or office. In such circumstances, the Registrar may appoint an Administrator for the better management of the registered society.
The Court then considered whether an order passed under Section 41(5) is subject to appeal or revision. It noted that the Act provides for appeal against orders under Section 41(1) and Section 41(2), but not against an order under Section 41(5).
From this, the Court drew the conclusion that the decision taken under Section 41(5) of the Act of 1935 is not an appealable order. Instead, in the view of the Court, the order appointing an Administrator under Section 41(5) is a “revisionable order.” Therefore, the appropriate remedy is to move a revision application before the Registrar under Section 56 of the Act of 1935.
In light of this legal position, the Court decided that the writ petition should not be entertained as the first remedy. Rather, the petitioner should be directed to avail the statutory revisional remedy.
However, the Court was also mindful of the fact that an elected Managing Committee had already been superseded and that the petitioner complained of violations of due process. To ensure that the petitioner’s grievance would not become infructuous by lapse of time or by the continuation of the Administrator’s tenure, the Court issued specific directions.
Firstly, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a revision case before the Registrar under Section 56 of the Act of 1935. The Court allowed a period of 30 days from the date of the judgment, i.e., 18.08.2025, for filing this revision.
Secondly, the Court directed that after hearing all the parties, the Registrar shall take a decision on the revision within three months. This direction seeks to ensure a time-bound resolution of the dispute at the appropriate statutory forum.
Thirdly, and crucially for the petitioner, the Court ordered that, in the meantime, the impugned Memo No. 604 dated 26.04.2025 shall be kept in abeyance. This means that the legal effect of the order superseding the Managing Committee and appointing an Administrator is suspended during this interim period.
By keeping the memo in abeyance, the Court ensured that the status created by that order does not operate to the prejudice of the petitioner while the revision is pursued. Though the judgment does not spell out the day-to-day operational consequences, the direction clearly prevents further action under Memo No. 604 until the Registrar has taken a final decision in the revision.
With these directions and observations, the Court recorded that the writ application stands allowed. The allowance is not in the sense of setting aside the impugned memo on merits, but in the sense of granting the petitioner the liberty and protection necessary to seek appropriate relief before the competent revisional authority.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision of the Patna High Court has important practical implications for cooperative societies in Bihar, especially Primary Agriculture Credit Societies and their elected office bearers.
It clarifies that when the majority of a Managing Committee resigns and the Registrar, acting under Section 41(5) of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, dissolves the committee and appoints an Administrator, the affected parties cannot file an appeal as a matter of right. Instead, they must file a revision before the Registrar under Section 56.
This guidance is crucial for chairpersons, committee members and shareholders who feel that their elected body has been superseded without proper enquiry or hearing. It tells them the exact legal route to challenge such orders.
The judgment also shows that, even when a party has not first used the statutory remedy, the Patna High Court may still protect them by granting interim relief and directing them to the proper forum, rather than rejecting their case outright. Here, the Court kept the supersession memo in abeyance and fixed a time limit for the Registrar to decide the revision.
For district and block cooperative officers, the judgment is a reminder that their actions in superseding elected bodies will be closely examined in revision and that due process and proper enquiry are implied expectations under the statutory framework.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Is an order appointing an Administrator by dissolving a Managing Committee under Section 41(5) of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, appealable or revisionable?
Answer: The Patna High Court held that such an order is not appealable, as appeals are provided only against orders under Section 41(1) and 41(2). The order under Section 41(5) is a revisionable order, and the remedy lies in filing a revision before the Registrar under Section 56 of the Act of 1935. - Issue: What interim protection can the High Court grant when directing a petitioner to avail the revisional remedy under the Act of 1935?
Answer: The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to file a revision within 30 days and directed the Registrar to decide the revision within three months. In the meantime, the Court ordered that Memo No. 604 dated 26.04.2025, which superseded the Managing Committee and appointed an Administrator, shall remain in abeyance.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The petitioner referred to an earlier Patna High Court decision in CWJC No. 15746 of 2022, alleging that its law was violated. However, the present judgment does not detail or expressly rely upon that case in its reasoning.
- No other case law is expressly cited or analysed by the Court in this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12941 of 2025
Case Title: Anish Patel Son of Laxman Singh Resident of Village Baruna, PO Manihari, PS Bhabua, District Kaimur vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 25
Advocates:
For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar
For the respondents/State: Mr. Government Pleader (26)
Nature of the case: Civil writ petition challenging the supersession of the Managing Committee of Manihari Primary Agriculture Credit Society (PACS), Block Bhabua, and appointment of an Administrator under the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, and seeking directions regarding due process and alternative remedy.
Impugned Order: Memo No. 604 dated 26.04.2025 issued by the District Cooperative Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua, superseding the Managing Committee of Manihari PACS and appointing an Administrator.
Date of Judgment: 18.08.2025
Uploading Date: 20.08.2025
Link to the Judgment: Click here to view the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
