Disposed¶14

Naresh Kumar Singh and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2025WRIC/39100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Co-operative society attachment and re-attachment; creation of district Sambhal by bifurcation of Moradabad; Section 14(2) Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1965; opportunity of hearing; consideration of representations dated 29.08.2025 and 09.09.2025; direction to Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Registrar; decision within four weeks; writ petition disposed; Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 39100 of 2025; Naresh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.; decided December 2, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the representations dated 29th August and 9th September, 2025 resisting tagging with the rural bank in Moradabad, and to inform the petitioners of the decision within four weeks of communication of the certified copy and copies of the representations. ¶14

Naresh Kumar Singh and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no. 3 (Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Registrar) should be directed to consider the petitioners' representations dated 29th August and 9th September, 2025 resisting re-attachment of their co-operative with the rural bank in Moradabad.

¶7

Court's answer

Sub-section (2) of Section 14, Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 requires opportunity of hearing being given.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the representations dated 29th August and 9th September, 2025 resisting change and tagging with the rural bank in Moradabad; petitioners to communicate certified copy of the order with copies of their representations, and the decision taken is to be informed to petitioners within four weeks of the communication.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition by members of a co-operative whose society, after creation of new district Sambhal by bifurcation of Moradabad district, had been attached to the district co-operative bank in Sambhal, and who resisted re-attachment to the rural bank in Moradabad pursuant to an order dated 22nd July, 2025 passed by respondent no. 3 (Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Registrar) under sub-section (2) of Section 14, Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Observing that sub-section (2) requires opportunity of hearing being given, the Court directed respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioners' representations dated 29th August and 9th September, 2025 resisting change and tagging with the rural bank in Moradabad, the petitioners to communicate certified copy of the order with copies of the representations, and the decision to be informed to the petitioners within four weeks of the communication.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 39100 of 2025

¶3

Naresh Kumar Singh And 9 Others

¶4

Versus	.....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Uma Nath Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶5

Court No. - 39

¶6

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

¶7

Mr. Uma Nath Pandey, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners, who are members of a co-operative. He submits, there was creation of new district Sambhal by bifurcation of existing Moradabad district. His clients' co-operative came to be attached with the district co-operative bank in Sambhal. Respondent no. 3 (the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Registrar) passed order dated 22nd July, 2025 re-attaching the co-operative with the rural bank in Moradabad. His clients made representations dated 29th August and 9th September, 2025. There be direction upon said respondent to consider them.

¶8

On query Mr. Pandey submits, the order was made under sub-section (2) in section 14, Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. His clients do not want to amend the byelaws pursuant to said order.

¶9

Mr. Ashim Mukherjee, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. He submits, the representations will be duly dealt with.

¶10

Sub-section (2) requires opportunity of hearing being given.

¶11

WRIC No. 39100 of 2025

¶12

¶13

As such, we direct respondent no. 3 to consider representations dated 29th August and 9th September, 2025, resisting change and tagging with the rural bank in Moradabad. Petitioners will communicate certified copy of this order along with copies of their representations to said respondent. Decision to be taken be informed to petitioners within four weeks of the communication.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

December 2, 2025 Salim

¶16

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

¶17

(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naresh Kumar Singh and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar Singh and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Kumar vs Smt Kamini Devi

Ramdev Yadav vs Reeta Devi

Committee of Management Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Kumar Soni vs Surabhi Soni

Munni Devi vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Babban Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others