Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Himank Nagpal vs Revanta Multi State Cghs Ltd & Ors on 23 March, 2026

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                          $~89
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                     Date of decision: 23rd March, 2026.
                                                     Uploaded on: 25th March, 2026.
                          +              W.P.(C) 3721/2026 & CM APPL. 18205/2026
                                 HIMANK NAGPAL                            .....Petitioner
                                              Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv.
                                              versus
                                 REVANTA MULTI STATE CGHS LTD & ORS. .....Respondents
                                              Through: Mr Anunaya Mehta Mr Vidhan Malik
                                                        and Ms Anandita Tayal, Advs. for R-
                                                        1.
                                                        Mr. Kunal Manav, Mr. Anupam Bhati
                                                        & Hitesh Sawant, Advs.
                                                        Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi
                                                        Srivastava, ADV Mr. Ayush Tanwar,
                                                        Adv, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Adv, Mr.
                                                        Kushagra Malik, Adv. for UOI.
                                 CORAM:
                                 JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                                 JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
                          Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Himank Nagpal under Article 226 of Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to reschedule the elections scheduled on 29th March, 2026 for the Managing Committee of the Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd. (hereinafter 'Society') on the ground that the eligibility of voters has not been verified properly and the electoral roll has been published in an incorrect manner.

3. The Petitioner in the present petition is stated to be a member of the Society. The challenge in this writ petition is in respect of an election notice Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3721/2026 Page 1 of 5 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:59:40 which has been issued on 19th January, 2026 by the Co-operative Election Authority. As per the said election notice, the election schedule has been fixed as under:

4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in terms of Sections 28 and 29 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, the list of eligible members has to be drawn up by the Returning Officer after considering the dues payable to the Society, etc. which has not been done and hence it is prayed that the election be stayed, until proper verification is done.

5. Heard. By way of background, it is necessary to record that this Court had considered W.P.(C) 12765/2025 titled Mukesh Kumar v. Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors. wherein certain Special General Board Meeting notices and Annual General Meeting notices of this very Society were challenged. In the said writ petition, vide order dated 16th February, 2026, this Court had observed as under:

"11. In the opinion of this Court, the conduct of AGM/SGBM and elections of any society go to the root Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3721/2026 Page 3 of 5 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:59:40 of the matter and the Registrar is fully empowered, especially, under orders of this Court to direct calling of the SGBM/AGM, if the circumstances so necessitate.

12. The word "otherwise" has to be interpreted in a broad manner rather than in a restricted manner. In the present case, a report was submitted to this Court by the Central Registrar and considering the same the Court had come to the conclusion that the activities of the Society were not being run properly. Thus, the SGBM/AGM had been directed by the Court pursuant to the report of the Central Registrar, and thereafter, the general body of the Society had considered removal of the Board. As noted above, the majority of the Society's members supported the no-confidence motion against the Managing Committee. Clearly, the Managing Committee had lost its mandate.

13. Under such circumstances, there is no illegality in the meeting notice dated 8th August, 2025 which has been issued. The petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

14. At this stage it is noted that fresh elections for the Managing Committee of the Society have been notified by the concerned Returning Officer vide Notification dated 11th February, 2026 and the same have commenced from today i.e., 16th February, 2026. In view of the same, the Court has also considered and disposed of the W.P.(C) 5502/2025 vide separate order passed today.

15. Needless to add, any members who may be aggrieved by the election process are free to avail of their remedies in accordance with law after the elections are concluded."

6. As recorded above, this Court had taken note of the fact that the elections had already been called and had clearly observed that any member who has any grievance in respect of the said elections is free to avail of remedies after the elections are concluded.

7. The District Magistrate/Collector, South-West Delhi who is the Returning Officer in this case is an independent person and it is expected that the provisional list of members would have been drawn after checking their eligibility. In any event, the date of polling is 29th March, 2026 which is the coming Sunday - at this stage interdicting the elections would not be in the interest of the Society.

8. Moreover, the Society is stated to have more than 4000 members and allowing such individual writ petitions to be filed to challenge the elections would in effect mean that the elections would never get conducted.

9. This Court further takes notice of the fact that the ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner today is Mr. Mukesh Kumar who was himself the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) 12765/2025. Mr. Mukesh Kumar is also a member of the Society. Under such circumstances, ideally, the ld. Counsel should not even appear in this matter as a Counsel.

10. Under such circumstances, the Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition in respect of the challenge to the elections and to the eligibility of members. Needless to add, if the Petitioner has any grievances after the elections are concluded, he is free to avail of his remedies in accordance with law.

11. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE MARCH 23, 2026/Rahul/ck Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3721/2026 Page 5 of 5 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:59:40