2026 INSC 216 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8743 OF 2013

REGISTRAR CANE COOPERATIVE

SOCIETIES & ORS. ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

GURDEEP SINGH NARVAL (DEAD)

THROUGH LRS. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8746 OF 2013

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8745 OF 2013

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8744 OF 2013

J U D G M E N T

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. These batch of appeals raise an important question regarding

legal status of two Sugarcane Cooperative Societies on

bifurcation of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and interplay

between Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Reorganisation

Act) and Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (2002 Act).

The core issue is whether Sugarcane Growers Cooperative

Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur, situated in Udham Singh

Nagar, District of Uttarakhand could be treated as Multi-State

2

Cooperative Societies by operation of Section 103 of 2002 Act,

despite their prior reorganisation and confinement of their area

of operations to a single State, under the statutory framework

governing State reorganisation.

2. For the facility of reference, facts from C.A. No.8743 of 2013 are

being referred to. Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society ,

Bajpur (Society) is a Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society

whose area of operation originally included 96 villages in Bajpur

and 34 villages in Suar, District Rampur in the erstwhile State of

Uttar Pradesh. The Society was registered under the U.P.

Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (1965 Act). The Registrar, Cane

Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, on 10.07.1998 passed an

order superseding the managing committee of the society. The

District Cane Officer, Udham Singh Nagar assumed the charge

of the society, as its administrator.

3. The Parliament enacted the Reorganisation Act, by which the

State of Uttaranchal (‘now Uttarakhand’) was created with effect

from 09.11.2000. On reorganisation of the State of Uttar

Pradesh, 34 Revenue Villages, including village Suar, fell into

the territory of the successor State of Uttar Pradesh and the

villages of Tehsil Bajpur fell into the successor State of

3

Uttaranchal. Thus, the area of operation of society spanned over

the two states, namely State of U.P. and State of Uttarakhand.

4. A meeting between the officers of State of U.P. and Officers of

State of Uttaranchal was convened on 08.02.2001, in which it

was decided that in respect of the societies which have

assumed the status of a multi -state cooperative society, a

meeting of General Body shall be convened for reconstitution of

such societies and with consent of both the States, the proposal

shall be sent for their reorganization to the Central Registrar,

Multi-State Cooperative Societies. Accordingly, a meeting of the

General Body of the Society was convened on 03.04.2001 in

which unanimously a resolution for reorganisation of the Society

was passed. The Cane Commissioner/Registrar Cooperative

Societies, Uttar Pradesh on 03.11.2001 made appropriate

amendments in bye-law no.3 of the Society.

5. The Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad by an order dated

14.05.2002 directed deletion of names of 34 villages including

the village Suar in District Rampur, from the area of operation of

the society and ordered inclusion of the said villages in

Sugarcane Cooperative Society Ltd. Suar, District Rampur, U.P.

Consequently, the area of the operation of the society was

4

curtailed and restricted to the areas which fell in the Territory of

State of Uttaranchal.

6. The respondent No.1’s name, who is a cane grower of village,

Suar, was not included in the list of members of the society. He,

therefore, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was

dismissed on 13.12.2002, on the ground that respondent No.1

has an alternative remedy of arbitration before the Central

Registrar under the 2002 Act. The respondent no.1 thereupon

initiated arbitration proceeding before the Central Registrar

against his exclusion from membership of the society. The sole

arbitrator by an award dated 31.08.2004, held that by virtue of

Section 103 of 2002 Act, the society became a Multi-State

Cooperative Society on 09.11.2000. It was further held that the

meeting of the General Body of the Society dated 03.04.2001

and order dated 14.05.2002 passed by Deputy Cane

Commissioner were illegal and void, and Respondent No.1

continued to be a bona fide member of the society.

7. The Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societ ies, Uttaranchal, on

17.03.2005, issued a notification initiating the process of

election of the Society, which was challenged by respondent No.1

in a Writ Petition. However, during the pendency of the writ

petition, the Registrar withdrew the aforesaid notification.

5

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with

the liberty to file fresh proceeding, if occasion so arises.

8. The Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal, issued a

fresh notification on 20.07.2006 for election of the Managing

Committee of the Society. The respondent No.1 again

approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. The High

Court, by judgment and order dated 14.03.2007, inter alia, held

that the Society is a Multi-State Cooperative Society under the

2002 Act. Therefore, the notification dated 20.07.2006 issued by

Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal is bad in law.

The High Court directed the Registrar, Multi-State Cooperative

Societies or the nominee of the Government of India to hold

election for Managing Committee of the Societies whose area of

operation fall in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

9. The judgment and order dated 14.03.2007, is challenged by the

State of Uttarakhand and members of Sugarcane Growers

Cooperative Society, Gadarpur, Udham Singh Nagar,

Uttarakhand in Civil Appeal Nos. 8743 of 2013, 8745 of 2013

and 8744 of 2013. Civil Appeal No.8746 of 2013, has been filed

by Cane farmers of Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society,

Gadarpur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, against order

dated 05.09.2006 by which Writ Petition , challenging the

6

election conducted by the State of Uttaranchal in respect of their

society, has been dismissed. In the aforesaid factual

background, these appeals arise for our consideration.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.

8743 of 2013, 8745 of 2013 and 8744 of 2013, has invited the

attention of this Court to the provisions of Reorganisation Act

and 2002 Act. It is submitted that Section 103 of 2002 Act, does

not, by itself, confer an automatic or deemed status of a Multi-

State Cooperative Society upon every society registered under

the State Cooperative Societies Act, merely because the parent

State has undergone reorganisation. It is urged that a factual

inquiry is required to be undertaken to determine the

applicability of Section 103 of the 2002 Act. In support of the

aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions

of this Court

1

.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 8746 of

2013 has contended that by virtue of Section 103(1) of the 2002

Act, the Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society, Gadarpur is

deemed to be a Multi-State Cooperative Society. It is submitted

that the respondents have failed to follow the scheme envisaged

1

State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary and Others v. Milkiyat Singh and Others; 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 2802

7

under the 2002 Act, and the amendments carried out in bye-

laws of the Society are illegal. In support of the aforesaid

submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this

Court

2

.

12. Learned Additional Solicitor General while inviting the attention

of this Court to Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act, has

contended that both the States had already taken necessary

steps to reorganize the Multi-State Cooperative Societies into two

state cooperative societies, within a period of t wo years,

therefore, the societies shall cease to be Multi-State Cooperative

Societies. It is urged that the decision of this Court

3

did not

consider the impact of Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act.

13. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and

have perused the record. At this stage, it is apposite to take note

of the relevant statutory provisions. The Reorganisation Act is a

parliamentary enactment designed to provide for a

comprehensive legal framework governing the territorial,

institutional, administrative and legal consequences arising from

bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. The said Act

came into force w.e.f. 09.11.2000. Section 87 of the

2

Naresh Shankar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 157

3

Naresh Shankar Srivastava (supra)

8

Reorganisation Act provides that the law which was applicable

on the date of bifurcation of State would continue to cover the

successor State i.e., Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) for a period

of two years, as applicable by order, subject to such adaptations

and modifications of the law. This provision embodies the

doctrine of legislative continuity, ensuring that statutory regimes

governing local institutions, including Cooperative Societies,

remain operational until replaced by fresh legislation. Section 87

of the Act is extracted below for the facility of reference: -

“87. Power to adapt laws.—

For the purpose of facilitating the application in

relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh or

Uttaranchal of any law made before the appointed

day, the appropriate Government may, before the

expiration of two years from that day, by order,

make such adaptations and modifications of the

law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as

may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon

every such law shall have effect subject to the

adaptations and modifications so made until

altered, repealed or amended by a competent

Legislature or other competent authority.

Explanation.— In this section, the expression

“appropriate Government” means as respects any

law relating to a matter enumerated in the Union

List, the Central Government, and as respects any

other law in its application to a State, the State

Government.”

9

14. Section 93 of the Reorganisation Act provides that provisions of

the said Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Section 93

reads as under: -

“93. Effect of provisions of the Act inconsistent

with other laws. –

The provisions of this Act shall have effect

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith

contained in any other law.”

15. The 2002 Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law

relating to cooperative societies, with objects not confined to one

State and serving the interests of members in more than one

State, to facilitate the voluntary formation and democratic

functioning of cooperatives as people’s institutions based on

self-help and mutual aid and to enable them to promote their

economic and social betterment and to provide functional

autonomy. Under the 2002 Act, a Multi-State Cooperative

Society may come into existence either by registration under

Section 5 or by conversion into a Multi-State Cooperative Society

under Section 22 of the 2002 Act. A Multi-State Cooperative

Society may also come into existence by a legal fiction as

provided under Section 103(1) of the 2002 Act. Section 103 of

the 2002 Act deals with cooperative societies functioning

immediately before Reorganisation of States.

10

16. The Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011

incorporated Part IX-B in the Constitution of India, which deals

with provisions relating to cooperative societies. The High Court

of Gujarat struck down Part IX-B of the 97

th Constitutional

Amendment on 22

nd April, 2013, on the ground that it required

ratification of the majority of State Legislatures as per Article

368(2) of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, the

Government of India filed a Civil Appeal against this judgment

before this Court, which, in its majority judgment dated 20

th

July, 2021, pronounced that Part IX-B of the Constitution of

India is operative only insofar as it concerns Multi -State

Cooperative Societies both within the various States and in the

Union Territories of India. Therefore, in order to bring the 2002

Act in consonance with Constitution (Ninety -Seventh

Amendment) Act, 2011, to plug loopholes in the existing

legislation and to strengthen the governance of Multi-State

Cooperative Societies, the 2002 Act was amended by Act No.11

of 2023 with effect from 03.08.2023.

17. A proviso to Section 103 was added by Amendment Act No.11 of

2023. The proviso came into force with effect from 03.08.2023.

Section 103(1) as amended by Act No.11 of 2023 is extracted

below for the facility of reference: -

11

“103(1) Where, by virtue of the provisions of Part II

of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956)

or any other enactment relating to reorganisation

of states, any cooperative society which

immediately before the day on which the

reorganisation takes place, had its objects confined

to one state becomes, as from that day, a multi-

state cooperative society, it shall be deemed to be a

multi-state cooperative society registered under the

corresponding provisions of this Act and the bye-

laws of such society shall, in so far as they are not

inconsistent with the provisions of this Act,

continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.

[Provided that where all the successor States

take necessary steps to divide or reorganise such

deemed multi-State co-operative society into

State co-operative societies in order to confine

their objects, services and the members to

respective States within a period of three years,

such deemed multi -State cooperative society

shall cease to be a multi-State co-operative

society:

Provided further that the deemed multi-State co-

operative society other than those mentioned in

the first proviso shall submit an application for

registration and obtain the certificate of

registration from the Central Registrar.]”

18. Now, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. In exercise

of powers conferred by Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act,

admittedly the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) adopted

the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. A meeting

between the officers of Uttar Pradesh and Officers of State of

Uttaranchal was convened on 08.02.2001 wherein it was

decided that in respect of Societies which have assumed the

status of Multi-State Cooperative Societies, a meeting of General

12

Body shall be convened for reconstitution of such societies and

with consent of both the States, the proposal shall be sent for

their reorganization to the Central Registrar, Multi -State

Cooperative Societies. A meeting of the General Body of the

Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society, Bajpur was convened

on 03.04.2001 in which a resolution for constituting separate

Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies consisting of 34

villages in Rampur, District of U.P. and 34 villages in Bajpur,

District Udham Singh Nagar, was unanimously passed.

Accordingly, Cane Commissioner/Registrar Cooperative

Societies, Uttar Pradesh on 03.11.2001 made appropriate

amendments to bye-law no.3 of the Society.

19. The Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad , by an order dated

14.05.2002, directed deletion of names of 34 villages including

the village Suar in District Rampur from the area of operation of

the society and ordered inclusion of the said villages in

Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society Ltd. Suar, District

Rampur, U.P. Consequently, the area of the operation of the

society was curtailed and restricted to the areas which fell in the

Territory of State of Uttaranchal.

20. The area of operation of Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society,

Gadarpur, consisted of 102 villages. On bifurcation of the State,

13

9 villages of Suar Tehsil in Rampur continued to be in State of

Uttar Pradesh whereas 93 villages, namely 70 villages of

Gadarpur, 14 villages of Tehsil, Bajpur and 5 villages of Tehsil

Kiccha in Udham Singh Nagar fell in the territory of new State of

Uttaranchal. In pursuance of policy decision taken by officers of

both the States on 08.02.2001, consequential action was taken

by Administrator of the society in presence of general body on

19.04.2003, by which 9 villages of Tehsil Swar District, Rampur

were directed to be deleted and a decision was taken to

reconstitute the Society with remaining 93 villages in the State

of Uttaranchal. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal

passed a consequential order on 01.12.2003, implementing the

deletion of 9 villages from the area of operation of Sugarcane

Growers Cooperative Society, Gadarpur.

21. The 2002 Act came into force w.e.f. 19.08.2002. However, prior

to it, a meeting between the officers of State of Uttar Pradesh

and Uttaranchal was convened on 08.02.2001, wherein decision

was taken to reconstitute and reorganize the societies as their

area of operation fell within the States of Uttar Pradesh and

Uttaranchal. The said action and the consequential action of

reconstitution of the society was taken under the transitional

regime as provided under Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act.

14

22. We may now take note of Section 103 of 2002 Act which

introduces a deeming fiction, whereby certain societies affected

by reorganisation may be treated as Multi-State Cooperative

Societies. It is well settled legal proposition that a legal fiction

must be strictly confined to the purpose for which it is created

and cannot be extended beyond its legitimate field. Legal fictions

are crafted tools, precise in purpose and limited in reach. The

deeming fiction created under Section 103 of the 2002 Act

cannot, in any case be construed in isolation so as to override

the express statutory scheme contained in Reorganisation Act,

which is an enactment governing all legal, administrative and

institutional consequences arising from bifurcation of erstwhile

State of Uttar Pradesh. The Reorganisation Act has also a non-

obstante clause i.e., Section 93. The deeming fiction which

though provides for a contingency on bifurcation of State,

embodied in Section 103 of 2002 Act, did not apply in view of

decision taken for reconstitution of the societies under the

Reorganisation Act.

23. For yet another reason, the Societies cannot be treated as Multi-

State Cooperative Societies under the 2002 Act. This Court

4

has

held that deeming fiction under Section 103 of 2002 Act is

4

Milkiyat Singh and Others (supra)

15

neither automatic nor universal, but is conditional upon factual

determination of the objects of the concerned Society and it has

to be ascertained whether the object of such Society extend to

more than one State. This Court emphasised the conceptual

distinction between ‘objects’ and ‘area of operation’ and clarified

that residence of the members or the geographical spread of

activity cannot substitute the statutory requirement that

principal objects must themselves be Multi States in character.

Applying the aforesaid principle to the instant appeals, and on

careful scrutiny of bye-laws, it is evident that the object of the

society are confined to safeguarding and promoting the interests

of local canegrowers and their objects do not evince any

intention to serve the members across the State boundaries.

24. Thus, the statutory scheme and chronology of events leave no

manner of doubt that decisions taken to reorganize the societies

on bifurcation of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh are valid in

view of Sections 87 and 93 of Reorganisation Act. Section 103 of

2002 Act neither operates automatically nor could it

retrospectively invalidate the completed actions undertaken

under the Reorganisation Act. It is a cardinal principle of

interpretation of statutes that provisions contained in two

statutes must be, if possible, interpreted in a harmonious

16

manner to give full effect to both the statutes

5

. The overriding

effect of Reorganisation Act and effect of Section 103 of the 2002

Act necessitates a harmonious construction by which operation

of legal fiction has to be restricted, in cases where action for

reorganisation of the Societies has already been taken and in

respect of the Society whose objects and area of operation are

confined to a single State. A deeming provision under Section

103 of 2002 Act cannot unsettle such completed action for

reorganisation, by virtue of Sections 87 and 93 of the

Reorganisation Act. In the absence of multiple State objects in

the bye-laws of the Societies, the same cannot be treated as

Multi-State Cooperative Societies, as statutory pre-conditions for

invoking Section 103 of 2002 Act are absent.

25. In so far as, the decision rendered by this Court

6

is concerned,

suffice it to say that the aforesaid decision dealt with provisions

of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and the impact of

Sections 87 and 93 of Reorganisation Act was not considered.

Therefore, the same has no application to these appeals.

5

In re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and

Stamp Act, 1899; (2024) 6 SCC 1.

6

Naresh Shankar Srivastava (supra)

17

26. In view of foregoing discussion, we hold that Sugarcane Growers

Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur are not Multi-State

Cooperative Societies under the 2002 Act. The judgment and

order dated 14.03.2007 passed by the High Court is quashed

and set aside. The judgment and order dated 05.09.2006 passed

in C.A. No.8746 of 2013 by High Court is upheld. The

authorities under the State Cooperative law shall take steps to

conduct the elections of the Societies expeditiously.

27. In the result, Civil Appeal Nos. 8743 of 2013, 8744 of 2013 and

8745 of 2013 are allowed, whereas Civil Appeal No. 8746 of

2013 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

..…..…….……………….………….……… .J.

[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

.……………………………….….……..….J.

[ALOK ARADHE]

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 10, 2026.