Dinesh Kumar Supreme Court Judgment (2026 INSC 163): Welfare Society Allotments and Article 226 Review

Case Summary

• Case name: Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Haryana and Ors. (Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16057 of 2025; reported as 2026 INSC 163)

• Date of judgment: 17 February 2026

• Judges: Honourable Justice Sanjay Kumar; Honourable Justice K. Vinod Chandran (pronouncing judgment)

• Advocates: Mr Pradeep Dahiya (for the appellant); Mr Shadan Farasat, Senior Counsel (for respondent No.2 HEWO); Mr Alok Sangwan, Senior A.A.G. (for the State of Haryana); Mr Shirish K. Deshpande (for respondents Nos.3 and 4)

• Statutes/Provisions referred: Societies Registration Act, 1860 (general regime governing societies); Constitution of India Article 12 (definition of State) and Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

• Other material: Rules and bye laws of HEWO (Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organization); internal Governing Body resolutions and notices

• Cited judgments: None explicitly cited in the judgment summary made available; the Court proceeds primarily on constitutional principles of fairness, transparency and fiduciary duty

Introduction

This judgment is of immediate practical significance for public lawyers, administrative counsel and in house legal teams advising government employees welfare associations. At its core, the Supreme Court deals with the intersection of private societies formed under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and public law obligations where governmental land, membership and ex officio governmental functionaries are involved.

Factual Background and Issues Before the Court

HEWO (the second respondent), a society formed for the welfare of HUDA employees, had constructed two super deluxe flats after cancellations. A Governing Body meeting had resolved that applicants with minimum deputation or service of six months in HUDA would be eligible and that membership and allotment would follow a draw of lots. One flat was allotted to a presiding Governing Body member (Mr K. Makrand Pandurang) prior to the closing date for applications; subsequently the flat was re allotted to the third respondent after he entered HUDA and became an ex officio Governing Body member. The fourth respondent obtained the second flat pursuant to a draw of lots; objections arose as to his eligibility under the pay band criteria and the timing or validity of his application.

Key legal questions were:

• Whether Article 226 writ jurisdiction could be invoked against HEWO given its status as a society, that is whether HEWO could be regarded as a State under Article 12 because the land or facilities were governmental and the Governing Body comprised ex officio government officers

• Whether the allotments violated the society’s rules or bye laws and principles of fairness, transparency and reasonableness, and whether those conduct amounted to nepotism or favouritism and abuse of power

• Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in treating the appellant as estopped from challenge because he had participated in the draw

Supreme Court’s Analysis

Availability of Public Law Remedies

The Court, agreeing with the High Court, recognised that when a society operates on land allocated by the government and confers preferential access to government employees, the veil between private entity and State thins. The presence of ex officio members, public functionaries holding responsible government offices, means the society’s actions cannot be completely insulated from constitutional scrutiny. Consequently, Article 226 remains available where lack of transparency and fairness affecting public interest is shown.

Fiduciary Duties of Ex Officio Members

The Court emphasised that ex officio members, even when sitting on a society’s Governing Body, cannot individually or collectively digress from the essential duties entrusted upon them and must act in a fiduciary capacity for the common good. This is a strong reiteration that public officers owe public law duties even in quasi private fora where they represent the State.

Unlawful Preferment and Breach of Bye Laws

The Court examined the chronology and documents closely. It noted that the third respondent was not a member nor within the required tenure on the date applications closed; yet HEWO proceeded to allot a flat to him. The Court observed in trenchant terms that such allocation was a clear act of favouritism and blatant display of self aggrandizement. The allotment therefore violated the society’s own rules and basic principles of procedural fairness.

Invalidity of the Fourth Respondent’s Allotment

Although respondent No.4 satisfied general service conditions, he did not meet the pay band level. Further, the Court found doubts over the formal completeness and timing of his application, no date or place on the form and no clear evidence of earnest money. The fact that the third respondent was the office holder under whom respondent No.4 worked suggested a conflict of interest and an appearance of impropriety that fatally tainted the process.

Participation in the Draw and Estoppel

The Division Bench’s reliance on the appellant’s participation in the draw to treat him as estopped was criticised. The Supreme Court made clear that participation in a flawed process does not automatically foreclose the right to challenge an arbitrary process that suffers from mala fides or clear rule breaking.

Relief Granted by the Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed:

• Refund of amounts to respondents 3 and 4 and vacating of premises within one month

• A fresh draw of lots among four eligible applicants who were in the fray earlier, subject to their consent; if only one remained, the appellant would be allotted one flat with a six month window to pay the deposit; if others decline, HEWO may re allot per existing eligibility

• Imposition of costs: Rs 1,00,000 on HEWO; Rs 50,000 on respondent No.3; Rs 25,000 on respondent No.4; Rs 50,000 to the appellant as litigation expenses, with directions for recovery and deposit with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee where appropriate

Practical Lessons for Legal Practitioners

• Scrutinise the constitutional angle whenever a private society uses government land or consists of ex officio public functionaries. Article 226 challenges may be maintainable despite incorporation under the Societies Act.

• Document chronology and compliance: tight facts on dates of application, deposits and membership status make the difference in challenging allotments.

• Conflict of interest rules and internal governance: client advice to societies must anticipate public law duties of ex officio members; internal decisions favouring a serving officer who does not meet eligibility criteria are vulnerable to judicial review.

• Remedies are pragmatic: the Court is willing to order refunds, vacatur and fresh draws rather than mere faint declaratory relief; costs are used meaningfully to penalise institutional abuse.

Notable Judicial Observations

Nepotism and self aggrandizement are anathema to a democratic system.

Charity begins at home.

A complete farce.

These observations underscore the Court’s intolerance for administrative favouritism masked as welfare decision making.

Conclusion

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana is an authoritative reaffirmation that public law standards of fairness, transparency and fiduciary duty will be applied where private associations act in contexts coloured by State involvement. The judgment is a reminder to legal advisers of welfare societies and to administrative authorities that procedural propriety, clear records and avoidance of conflicts are not optional. For litigators, the decision shows that Courts will look beyond labels and test conduct by substance, especially where ex officio public officers are involved.

Extract from the Judgment

The appellant herein admitted to the membership of HEWO, is eligible by way of his 14 years of deputation in the Haryana Urban Development Authority for short HUDA which is alternatively referred to in the vernacular as Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran for short HSVP. One of the flats available was conceded to a governing body member, the third respondent based on a decision taken by HEWO in the year 2020 and in the picking of lots conducted for the one remaining flat, the fourth respondent turned out to be successful. The appellant challenged the allotment of the super deluxe flats to the third and fourth respondents, alleging them to be ineligible and accusing HEWO of favoritism, to both its governing body member, the third respondent and his subordinate.

The respondents, HEWO and the beneficiaries resisted the writ petition first on the ground of Article 226 not being capable of invocation, the society being a private entity, not subject to governmental control, thus taking it out of the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The allotments were asserted to be in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the society and the exception carved out was urged to be unexceptionable for reason of it being a common place practice as decided by the Governing Body in the past. The third respondent was a governing body member so enabled preference by the earlier decision, and the fourth respondent satisfied the basic pay requirement, which alone was the consideration as per the decision of the Governing Body. The appellant had participated and lost and hence, could not challenge the allotment was the defense.

Noticing additionally that the members were all government employees, specifically the persons who were in the employment of the HUDA or who were on deputation having a minimum service of six months in the department, to whom preferential allotment was made of flats constructed by HEWO was allotted. The Governing Body of the Society also comprises ex officio members, holding responsible positions in the department and the government. Though, ex officio, while sitting in the Governing Body by virtue of their offices, they cannot individually or collectively digress from the essential duties entrusted upon them. As responsible officers of the Government, the Governing Body members in that capacity too, should act in a fiduciary capacity for the common good, ensuring fairness, transparency and accountability, while eschewing favouritism, bias and arbitrariness.

Hence, as on the date of allotment, there was not even the membership fees deposited by the 3rd respondent, leave alone the submission of an application along with earnest money deposit, before the last date. We observe at the risk of repetition that on the last date of application the third respondent was not even an employee of HUDA or a governing body member of HEWO. The third respondent took charge as per Annexure P 11 on 12.08.2021 in HUDA, by virtue of which he became a governing body member of HEWO. There could have been no preferential allotment given to the governing body member who was not even satisfying the six months deputation period in the service of HUDA. We find absolutely no reason to uphold the allotment made to the third respondent which is a clear act of favouritism and blatant display of self aggrandizement.