Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/19 vs The State Of Assam And 18 Ors on 23 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/19
GAHC010200582024
2026:GAU-AS:2646-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/340/2024
AYESHA SULTANA CHOUDHURY
D/O- HABIBUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY, VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
PART-I, P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-
788006.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 18 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIE SOCIETIES
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 22.
3:THE ZONAL JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
SILCHAR ZONE
SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788001.
4:THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788001.
Page No.# 2/19
5:THE MEHERPUR-KRISHNAPUR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-I
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788006.
6:AYUB UDDIN LASKAR
S/O- LATE LAKAMONI LASKAR
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
7:ABDUL KALAM LASKAR
S/O- LATE SAMS UDDIN LASKAR
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
8:RAFIK UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE KALA MIA BARBHUIYA
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
9:HARIS ALI MAZUMDWER
S/O- LATE SABER ALI MAZUMDER
R/O- VILLAGE- SUBASHPUR PART-I
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
Page No.# 3/19
10:AMRIT GOALA
S/O- RAMPRABESH GOALA
R/O- VILLAGE- ATALBASTI
P.O.- GHOONGUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
11:JALAL UDDIN LASKAR
S/O- LATE GULAM AKBAR LASKAR
R/O- VILLAGE- AMBIKAPUR PART-IV
P.O.- MEHERPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
12:ABU DAS
S/O- LATE GIRI MOHAN DAS
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-III
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
13:SALIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE MOSAID ALI BARBHUIYA
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
14:FARUQUE AHMED LASKAR
S/O- LATE KAMARU UDDIN LASKAR
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
Page No.# 4/19
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
15:KIRTIBAAS CHASA
S/O- LATE JAGADEB CHASA
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
16:LALON UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE SAMIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
17:MOKTAR UDDIN MAZUMDER
S/O- LATE LATU MAZUMDER
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
18:MISLU AHMED CHOUDHURY
S/O- LATE ARZUMAN ALI CHOUDHURY
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
19:IMRANA AHMED MAZUMDER
S/O- FAISUL AHMED MAZUMDER
R/O- VILLAGE- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PART-II
Page No.# 5/19
P.O.- UTTARKRISHNAPUR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H K DAS, MR N K SARMA,MS. S PARVEEN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CO OP, MR. M SARMA,H YEASMIN (R6, R8-R13, R15-
R19),MR. A K AZAD (R6, R8-R13, R15-R19),MR H I CHOUDHURY (R6, R8-R13, R15-R19),MR. S
BANIK (R6, R8-R13, R15-R19),GA, ASSAM
– B E F O R E-
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Appellants : Mr. H.K.Das, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. S.K.Talukdar, Adv
Mr. H.I.Choudhury, Adv
Mr. S. Banik, Adv.
Date on which judgment was reserved : 13.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.02.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment? : No
Whether the judgment has been pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Arun Dev Choudhury, J)
1. We have heard Mr. H. K. Das, learned counsel for the
appellant. Also heard Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel
Page No.# 6/19
for the Co-operation Department representing the respondent Nos.
1, 2, 3 and 3; Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel and Mr. H. I. Choudhury,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16,
17, 18 & 19.
2. The present appeal calls into question the correctness of
the judgment and order (oral) dated 31.08.2024, passed in WP(C)
No. 1476/2024, whereby the learned Single Judge interfered with an
order dated 21.09.2023 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Assam.
3. By the order dated 21.09.2023, impugned in the writ petition,
the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, declined to
approve the Annual General Meeting(AGM)/Election for the
constitution of the Board of Directors of Meherpur Krishnapur Co-
operative Society Ltd. held on 18.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as
the Society).
4. The dispute in the present intra-Court appeal thus centres
upon the legality of the Annual General Meeting and the election
of the Board of Directors of Society on 18.03.2023.
5. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, upon
examination of the attendance sheet and after hearing the
stakeholders, by the impugned order dated
21.09.2023, disapproved the said election. The writ petitioners, who
were the beneficiaries of the uncontested election, assailed the
aforesaid order in WP(C) No. 1476/2024.
Page No.# 7/19
6. The learned Single Judge, by the aforenoted judgment and
order (oral) dated 31.08.2024, interfered with the decision of the
Registrar on the reasoning that the alleged anomalies were
sweeping in nature, no material was shown as to how the
uncontested election stood materially affected, and that the
complaint filed by the appellant lacked substantiation.
7. The important facts require consideration for proper
adjudication of the controversy in a nutshell are to the effect that
the Zonal Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Silchar Zone,
Silchar, by order dated 17.12.2022, appointed a “One-man
Committee” to manage the affairs of the society and to convene
the AGM/Election within 90(ninety) days for constitution of a new
Managing Committee /Board of Directors in terms of Section 41 (6)
of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act, 2007) as the earlier Board failed to held election in
terms of section 41(4) of the Act’2007.
8. Thereafter, in a meeting held on 26.12.2022, a resolution was
adopted for the correction of the Voters List, fixing the submission of
applications for correction of eligible voters and for substitution of
the legal heirs in place of dead persons from 14.01.2023 to
31.01.2023.
9. Subsequently, the notice was also published in two local
newspapers on 11.01.2023. Some applications for substitution
against deceased voters were received. A correction was also
Page No.# 8/19
carried out, and a final Voter List was published and approved by
the concerned Registrar.
10. Thereafter, the election schedule was notified, providing
dates for filing and withdrawal of nominations and for holding the
AGM/ Election for 15 Executive Members. 17 Nominations were filed.
However, one was withdrawn, two were rejected, leaving 14 valid
nominations.
11. Prior to the scheduled meeting, the appellant submitted a
complaint to the Minister of the Co-operation Department, alleging
irregularities in the issuance of the notice, the existence of
deceased shareholders, and the non-publication of the Voter List.
12. On the scheduled date, initially, the AGM was adjourned for
want of quorum; however, it was subsequently held, quorum having
been achieved. As 14 valid nominations were received against 15
posts, all 14 candidates were declared elected uncontested, and
the certificates of election were also issued. The observer forwarded
the proceedings to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Silchar.
13. Thereafter, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, in
its order dated 03.04.2023, rejected the aforesaid proceeding,
alleging violations of principles of natural justice.
14. A writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2052/2023, was filed by the
returned candidates, and this Court set aside the order dated
Page No.# 9/19
03.04.2023 (supra) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration
after hearing the parties.
15. Upon remand, the elected candidates pointed out statutory
compliance and the appellant’s silence under the prescribed
statutory remedies. However, the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Assam, by order dated 21.09.2023, again set aside the
AGM/election on the grounds that several shareholders had signed
the attendance sheet twice and that signatures were found against
the share numbers of deceased voters.
16. Parallelly, a complaint was lodged against the appellant,
and the concerned Assistant Registrar concluded that the process
by which the share had been offered to her was malicious and
mala fide, and directed that her share be discarded and that the
voter list be corrected.
17. Again, the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2023 of the Registrar
was assailed in WP(C) No. 438/2024 by the returned candidates.
18. They contended that Section 26(3) of the Act, 2007, provides
a specific remedy for grievances regarding the inclusion or non-
inclusion of members in the Voter List within 10 (ten) days of its
publication. It was also contended that despite the publication
and approval of the final Voter List, the complainant did not file an
appeal within the prescribed period.
19. It was further contended that Rule 27 of the Assam Co-
Page No.# 10/19
operative Societies’ Election Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as
the Rules, 2019) mandates that any election dispute must be filed
before the Election Authority within three days of the declaration of
the results. No such dispute was instituted. The complaint to the
Minister, it was urged, was wholly without jurisdiction, as election
matters cannot be adjudicated by the executive authority outside
the statutory framework.
20. The election being uncontested and no candidate having
been prejudiced or excluded, the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to
annul the democratic outcome in the absence of a properly
instituted statutory challenge, it was urged.
21. The returned candidates also relied upon the findings of
mala fide in the allotment of shares to the complainant, to contend
that she lacked locus and clean hands.
22. The principal submission of the appellant is that the
attendance sheet of the AGM held on 18.03.2023, according to the
Registrar, showed signatures appearing twice for certain
shareholders and signatures against the share numbers of
deceased members. The findings, it is contended, remain
uncontroverted on facts. If the General Assembly was, thus,
constituted in breach of Section 29(1), the proceedings of the AGM
were void, and the election conducted therein necessarily fell with
it.
23. The doctrine of materially affecting the result, it is urged, is
Page No.# 11/19
inapposite in a statutory scheme, where election is not a separate
polling exercise but an integral facet of a validly convened general
meeting. The Separate Voter List was not complied with. Rule 3(h)
of the Rules, 2019 was disregarded, and a late notice dated
11.01.2023 was demonstratively backdated as the signatures and
the attendance circumstances revealed the absence of genuine
publication.
24. The existence of dead voters in the attendance sheet and
the Voter List was pressed into service as evidence of systemic
infirmity. It was submitted that preparation of a Voter List is sine qua
non for a lawful election and that certification by subordinate
authorities cannot override the Registrar’s quasi-judicial
satisfaction. Reliance was placed upon S. N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of
India reported in [(1990) 4 SCC 594].
25. Though no separate appeal has been preferred by the
Registrar, the learned Counsel for the Registrar argues that the
Registrar acted within the statutory scheme of the Act, 2007 and
that once a general meeting is vitiated by participation of ineligible
persons, the election held therein cannot survive independently.
26. It is urged that Sections 2(u), 2(v), 29(1) and 41(5) of the Act,
2007 provide that the General Assembly constitutes the highest
authority of the society and must consist only of the members
eligible to vote. The election of Directors takes place at a general
meeting for that purpose. Therefore, the legality of the election is
Page No.# 12/19
inseparable from the legality of the general meeting itself. Reliance
is placed in Zora Singh Vs. Shri J. M. Tendon & Ors. reported in [1971
(3) SCC 834].
27. We now proceed to examine whether the learned Single
Judge’s interference calls for appellate correction.
28. At the outset, it must be emphasised that the Registrar’s
jurisdiction to disapprove an AGM/Election is supervisory and quasi-
judicial in character. It is not an unstructured administrative
discretion.
29. The power, though wide, is circumscribed by the statutory
framework and the constitutional discipline of reasoned decision-
making.
30. Where the consequence of the exercise of such power is
annulment of a democratically constituted body, the threshold of
scrutiny is necessarily exacting. The authority must demonstrate on
objective material that the statutory infraction is of such character
and magnitude as to strike at the root of the proceeding.
31. The impugned order dated 21.0.2023 rests essentially on two
observations: first, that some shareholders signed the attendance
sheet twice; second, that the signatures were found against the
share numbers of deceased shareholders.
32. From these premises, the Registrar concluded that the AGM
was held in violation of the Act, 2007 and upheld the earlier order of
Page No.# 13/19
disapproval.
33. What is absent is a reasoned linkage between the irregularity
alleged and the drastic consequences imposed.
34. The order does not quantify the number of such instances; it
does not determine whether those persons were counted for
quorum; it does not record whether the alleged duplication or
presence of deceased members altered the composition of the
General Assembly in a manner affecting its legitimacy; nor does it
assess whether the uncontested election was influenced by a
tangible sense.
35. Section 29(1) of the Act, 2007, mandates that the General
Assembly shall consist of the members eligible to vote.
36. The provision is indeed mandatory. However, the
jurisprudential distinction between mandatory compliance and
automatic nullity must not be conflated. A statutory mandate may
be mandatorily in obligation, yet the consequence of breach may
depend upon the nature, extent, and impact of deviation.
37. The Act, 2007, does not declare that any irregular presence
ipso facto renders the entire meeting void. In the absence of such
an expressed consequence, the authority is required to undertake a
fact-based enquiry into materiality. Such enquiry based on fact and
record is permissible under Rule 27(a) & (b) of the Rules, 2019.
However, no dispute was raised before the election authority.
Page No.# 14/19
38. The submission that the doctrine of materially affecting the
result has no application because the election contested could not
pursue us.
39. Even where an election is uncontested, the question remains
whether the decision-making forum, i.e., the General Assembly, was
so fundamentally vitiated that it lacks legitimacy, more particularly,
when such legitimacy can be determined under Rule 27 of the
Rules, 2019 by the election authority. No such power is vested upon
the Registrar under the Act, 2007 and the Rules, 2019.
40. The concept of materiality is not confined to competitive
polling. It is an expression of a broader principle that the Courts do
not invalidate collective decisions for inconsequential or technical
deviations.
41. To hold that any infraction, however minimal, obliterates the
proceeding, it would be to adopt a rule of automatic invalidation
unsupported by the statutory text.
42. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge correctly noted
that the Registrar’s observation regarding anomalies in the voter list
was sweeping in nature. The order of the Registrar does not advert
to the process of preparation of the list, whether objections were
invited, whether corrections were made, or whether the alleged
anomalies were brought to the notice of the “One-man
Committee” for rectification.
Page No.# 15/19
43. In matters affecting civil consequences, the requirement of
reason is not an empty formality.
44. As held in S. N. Mukherjee (supra), the recording of reasons
ensures application of mind and enables effective judicial
review. An order, which merely recites a conclusion without
disclosing the analytical process, fails to meet its constitutional
standard.
45. The reliance on Zora Singh (supra) to sustain the order on a
single ground is equally unavailing. For that principle to apply, the
surviving ground must itself be independently sufficient and
demonstratively sustainable.
46. Here, the foundational ground, the tainted attendance
sheet, has not been analysed in a manner capable of sustaining the
extreme consequences of annulment. The absence of
particulars renders it impossible to assess proportionality or necessity.
47. The argument of the Appellant based on Section 41(6) of the
Act, 2007, alleging that the AGM was held beyond 90 days does not
carry the matter any further.
48. The statute does not prescribe that non-adherence to the 90-
day period by the One-man Committee, result in automatic
nullification, whereas Section 41(4) of the Act, 2007, prescribes
consequences when such an AGM is not held by an elected body
within the period prescribed.
Page No.# 16/19
49. In the absence of any express panel consequence, the time
prescriptions are ordinarily directory, unless prejudice or legislative
intent to the contrary is established. Neither any material is shown
nor any prescription under the statute to indicate that one day
deviation subverted the statutory objects of having an elected
body or prejudiced any member. In this regard, it is important to
record that an One-man Committee is prescribed in a situation
where the earlier elected body fails to arrange for holding an
election before the expiry of the term of their office under Section
42(1) of the Act, 2007. Thus, the object of such a mandate is to get
an elected body within a prescribed period. Therefore, reading a
penal consequence on such failure without any express provision
may result in further delay in getting an elected body to run the
Society.
50. Similarly, the allegations regarding non-publication of the
Voter List and backdating of notices were not conclusively
determined by the Registrar upon evidentiary examination. There is
no detailed articulation in the impugned order. The judicial review
cannot sustain an order founded on conjectural assumptions or
unarticulated reasons.
51. The Registrar, being the apex statutory authority, must act
with heightened responsibility. His conclusions must be supported by
discernible reasoning and objective data.
52. The record discloses that the electoral process was initiated
Page No.# 17/19
in accordance with the statutory calendar notified by the
competent authority.
53. The membership register stood finalised, objections, if any,
were invited in the ordinary course, and the election was
conducted under the supervision of the statutory functionaries.
54. As recorded hereinabove, the statutory scheme under the
Act, 2007, and the Rules, 2019, is a self-contained code governing
electoral disputes within co-operative societies.
55. It provides a pre-election remedy for Voter List grievances
under Section 26(3); a post-election remedy for election disputes
under Rule 27, prescribing timelines that ensure certainty and finality
and power to the election authority to enquire into the dispute
based on relevant records and pass necessary orders. Admittedly,
the Registrar is not the election authority.
56. The appellant neither objected contemporaneously to the
alleged non-publication of the Voter List nor sought recourse to the
statutory remedies available under the Act, 2007. It is only after the
outcome proved unpalatable that the challenge was made by the
appellant before the Departmental Minister, who in turn forwarded
the same to the Registrar.
57. Such conduct attracts the well-settled principle that one who
takes a calculated chance in a process, he/she cannot thereafter
assail it on the grounds that were available at the inception.
Page No.# 18/19
58. The doctrine of approbation and reprobation stands cruelly
attracted in the present case. Even the complaint was addressed to
a forum lacking adjudicatory competence, followed by an
administrative action that sought to settle an uncontested election.
59. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the co-operative
societies, though subject to statutory regulation, embody
democratic self-governance; interference with an elected body is
not to be lightly undertaken.
60. Supervisory power of the Registrar exists to correct illegality,
not to supplant collective will. The principle of proportionality, now
firmly embedded in administrative law, requires that measures
adopted be commensurate with the mischief sought to be
remedied.
61. Annulment of the entire AGM/Election, without
demonstrating that the irregularities were pervasive and outcome-
determinative, fails that test.
62. In appellate jurisdiction, particularly in an intra-Court appeal,
interference with the discretionary and reasoned exercise of the
jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge is warranted only upon
demonstration of perversity, misapplication of law, or patent error;
we found none here.
63. The learned Single Judge examined the records, evaluated
the reasoning of the registrar, and concluded that the order was
Page No.# 19/19
not supported by sufficient material particulars. We find no
perversity or legal infirmity in that conclusion.
64. The autonomy of co-operative institutions must be
harmonised with statutory supervision. Harmony is preserved not by
mechanical annulment but by reasoned, evidence-based
intervention.
65. In the present case, the Registrar’s order does not disclose
the degree of analysis required to sustain the drastic consequences
imposed. The interference by the learned Single Judge is therefore
justified.
66. For the reasons and upon an independent reappraisal of the
statutory scheme and the record, we affirm the judgment and
order(oral) dated 31.08.2024, the writ appeal fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
67. No order as to cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant
