Holding

A cooperative society whose objects are confined to a single state cannot be deemed a multi‑state cooperative society under Section 103 of the 2002 Act, and the reorganisation effected under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 remains valid.

Summary

The case concerned two sugarcane growers' cooperative societies (Bajpur and Gadarpur) whose areas of operation were split between Uttar Pradesh and the newly created state of Uttarakhand after the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. The societies were reorganised under the Reorganisation Act, limiting their operations to Uttarakhand, and the question arose whether Section 103 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 automatically deemed them multi‑state societies despite this reorganisation. The Supreme Court examined the interplay between the Reorganisation Act (sections 87 and 93) and the 2002 Act, emphasizing that the legal fiction in Section 103 is conditional on the societies' objects being multi‑state in character, not merely on the residence of members or geographic spread. It held that the societies' bye‑laws confined their objects to local cane growers, so the pre‑conditions for invoking Section 103 were absent, and the reorganisation under the Reorganisation Act remained valid. Consequently, the High Court order treating the societies as multi‑state was set aside, the earlier order upholding the reorganisation was affirmed, and the societies were directed to conduct elections under state cooperative law.

Issues considered

Whether Section 103 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 automatically deems a cooperative society operating across two states as a multi‑state society upon state bifurcation.
Whether the actions taken under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (sections 87 and 93) to reorganise the societies preclude the operation of the deeming provision in Section 103.
Whether the objects of the societies, as reflected in their bye‑laws, satisfy the statutory requirement of being multi‑state in character.

Legislation cited

Amendment Act No.11 of 2023s. 103(1) proviso
Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011
Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002s. 103
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965
Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000s. 87, s. 93

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur, situated in Udham Singh Nagar, District of Uttarakhand could be treated as Multi-State Cooperative Societies by operation of s.103 of Multi-State despite their prior reorganisation and confinement of their area of operations to a single State, under the statutory framework governing State reorganisation. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 – ss.87, 93 – Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 –

Subjects

Section 103Multi-State Cooperative SocietiesUttar Pradesh Reorganisation ActSection 87Section 93State bifurcationCooperative society objectsLegal fictionDoctrine of legislative continuityElection of managing committee

Judgment

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 301 : 2026 INSC 216

Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies & Ors.
v.
Gurdeep Singh Narval (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 8743 of 2013)
10 March 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and
Gadarpur, situated in Udham Singh Nagar, District of Uttarakhand
could be treated as Multi-State Cooperative Societies by operation
of s.103 of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, despite their
prior reorganisation and confinement of their area of operations
to a single State, under the statutory framework governing State
reorganisation.

Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 – ss.87, 93 – Multi-State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 – s.103 – Sugarcane Growers
Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur, situated in Udham
Singh Nagar, District of Uttarakhand, if could be treated as
Multi-State Cooperative Societies by operation of s.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 reorganization:
Held: Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and
Gadarpur are not Multi-State Cooperative Societies under the 2002
Act – 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 – In the
instant appeals 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 – In view of the statutory scheme and chronology of
events, decisions taken to reorganize the societies on bifurcation
of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh are valid in view of ss.87 and

* Author
302 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

93 of Reorganisation Act – s.103 of 2002 Act neither operates
automatically nor could it retrospectively invalidate the completed
actions undertaken under the Reorganisation Act – Provisions
contained in two statutes must be, if possible, interpreted in a
harmonious manner to give full effect to both the statutes – The
overriding effect of Reorganisation Act and effect of s.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 u/s.103 of 2002
Act cannot unsettle such completed action for reorganisation, by
virtue of ss.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 s.103 of 2002 Act are absent –
Judgment dtd.14.03.2007 passed by the High Court is quashed
and set aside while the judgment dtd.05.09.2006 passed in C.A.
No.8746 of 2013 by High Court is upheld – Authorities under the
State Cooperative law shall take steps to conduct the elections
of the Societies expeditiously – U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1965 – Interpretation of Statutes. [Paras 23, 24, 26]

Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 – s.103 – Deeming
fiction under – Legal fiction is confined to the purpose
for which it is created and cannot be extended beyond its
legitimate field:
Held: s.103 of 2002 Act introduces a deeming fiction, whereby
certain societies affected by reorganisation may be treated as
Multi-State Cooperative Societies – 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 u/s.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., s.93 – The deeming fiction
which though provides for a contingency on bifurcation of State,
embodied in s.103 of 2002 Act, did not apply in view of decision
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 303

Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies & Ors. v.
Gurdeep Singh Narval (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

taken for reconstitution of the societies under the Reorganisation
Act – Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 – s.93. [Para 22]
Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 – s.103 – Uttar
Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 – ss.87, 93 – Interplay
between the Acts – Doctrine of Legislative Continuity –
Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 –
Amendment Act No.11 of 2023. [Paras 13-21]

Case Law Cited
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary and Others v.
Milkiyat Singh and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2802 – relied on.
In re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 [2023] 15 SCR
1081 : (2024) 6 SCC 1 – referred to.
Naresh Shankar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2009]
7 SCR 1188 : (2009) 16 SCC 157 – held not applicable.

List of Acts
Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002; Uttar Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2000; Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment)
Act, 2011; Amendment Act No.11 of 2023; U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Section 103 of Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000; Section 93,
Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000; Section 87, Uttar Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2000; Bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Uttar
Pradesh; Multi-State Cooperative Societies; Sugarcane Growers
Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur; Udham Singh Nagar,
District of Uttarakhand; State reorganisation; Confinement of area
of operations of Multi-State Cooperative Societies to a single
State; Doctrine of legislative continuity; Absence of multiple State
objects in the bye-laws of the Societies; Residence of members
or the geographical spread of activity; Principal objects must be
Multi States in character; Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies;
Co-operative societies; Reorganisation of States; Bifurcation of
the State; New State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand); Area of
operation of Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Society.
304 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8743
of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2007 and 11.04.2007 of
the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CWP No. 988 of 2006
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 8746, 8745, and 8744 of 2013

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Atrey, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Vikas
Negi, Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Jagdeep Sharma, Navneet Gupta, Dr.
Riju Raj S Jamwal, Balaji Srinivasan, Manoj Sagar, Gupta, Mrs.
Bharti Gupta, Pushp Raj Gupta.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G., T. N. Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Ms. Rajshree
Singh, Umang Tripathi, Akshat Kumar, Abhishek Atrey, Vatsal
Joshi, Amit Sharma-v, Uday Bhan Singh, Bhuvan Kapoor, Prashant
Singh-ii, Yogesh Vats, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Vatsal Joshi, Chitransh
Sharma, Sharath Nambiar, Ms. Aashna Gill, Santosh Ramdurg,
Yogesh Vats, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

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 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.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 305

Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies & Ors. v.
Gurdeep Singh Narval (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

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 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 curtailed and restricted
to the areas which fell in the Territory of State of Uttaranchal.
306 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 Societies, 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. 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,
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 307

Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies & Ors. v.
Gurdeep Singh Narval (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Uttarakhand, against order dated 05.09.2006 by which Writ Petition,
challenging the 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 Court1.
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 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 Court2.
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 two years, therefore, the societies shall
cease to be Multi-State Cooperative Societies. It is urged that the
decision of this Court3 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

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2802 : State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary and Others v. Milkiyat
Singh and Others.
2 (2009) 16 SCC 157 : Naresh Shankar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
3 Naresh Shankar Srivastava (supra)
308 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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.”
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.”
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 309

Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies & Ors. v.
Gurdeep Singh Narval (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

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.
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 97th Constitutional Amendment on 22nd 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
20th 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: -
“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
310 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 311

Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies & Ors. v.
Gurdeep Singh Narval (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

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, 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.
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
312 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 Court4 has
held that deeming fiction under Section 103 of 2002 Act is 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
manner to give full effect to both the statutes5. 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

4 Milkiyat Singh and Others (supra)
5 (2024) 6 SCC 1 : In re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 and Stamp Act, 1899.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 313

Registrar Cane Cooperative Societies & Ors. v.
Gurdeep Singh Narval (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

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 Court6 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.
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.

Result of the case: Civil Appeal No(s). 8743 of 2013, 8744 of
2013 and 8745 of 2013 are allowed, whereas
Civil Appeal No. 8746 of 2013 is dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey

6 Naresh Shankar Srivastava (supra)