Gauhati High Court
Development Thrift And Credit Co … vs The State Of Assam on 17 July, 2026
GAHC010269282025
2026:GAU-AS:9798
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
ITANAGAR PERMANENT BENCH, NAHARLAGUN
Writ Petition No. 7083 of 2025
1. Development Thrift And Credit Co Operative
Society Ltd, a leading non banking financial
institution registered under the provisions of the
Assam Cooperative Societies Act. 2007, having Its
registered office situated at Hospital Road,
Sivasagar, Dist. Sivasagar, Pin- 785640 Assam,
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer Sri
Gunin Dehingia, Son of late Guna Kanta
Dehingia.
2. Gunin Dehingia
S/O- Late Guna Kanta Dehingia
R/O- Housing Society
P.O. Phukan Nagar
P.S. And Dist. Sivasagar
Assa M.
.....Petitioners.
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED
BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM, COOPERATION DEPTT.,
SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -
781006.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES
KHANAPARA
Page 1 of 32
GUWAHATI-781022
ASSAM.
3. THE ZONAL JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
JORHAT
ASSAM.
4. THE DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
5. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
6. SRI AMAL MILI
SENIOR INSPECTOR/ AUDITOR OF
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
SIVASAGAR
...Respondents
Advocate for the Appellants: Mr. B. D. Goswami, Sr. Adv.,
assisted by Mr. J. M. Gogoi
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. S. K. Talukdar, SC, Cooperative
Department
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
Date on which judgment was reserved : 23.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.07.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : Yes
operative part of the judgment?
Page 2 of 32
Whether the full judgment has been : NA
pronounced?
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners [petitioner
No. 1 Cooperative Society is being represented by the petitioner
No. 2 who is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the petitioner
No. 1] to assail the legality and validity of the letter bearing no.
CSDG15/84/Pt-VI/176: dated 04.11.2025 issued by the Deputy
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivasagar (Respondent No. 4)
whereby dissolving the Board of Directors selected/elected on
26.09.2025 in exercise of power under Sections 26(3), 34 and 41
of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 and allowing the
One-Man-Management Committee to take over the affairs of the
Petitioner Society in purported exercise of power under sections
41(6) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007. By filing the
writ petition, the petitioners have also challenged the legality and
validity of the order bearing no. CZJG.15/2008/Pt-1/8 dated
10.11.2025, issued by the Zonal Joint Registrar of Cooperative
Page 3 of 32
Societies, Jorhat holding that the Board of Directors of the
Petitioner Society stood automatically dissolved under section 39
of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 and appointing Sri
Amal Mili, Senior Inspector/Auditor of Cooperative Societies, office
of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sivasagar to
perform all functions of the Board of Directors and convene Annual
General Meeting/Election of the Petitioner Society as well as
constitute the Board within 90 days in exercise of power conferred
under section 41(6) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007.
2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Thrift and Credit Cooperative
Society, registered on 14.11.1990 under the provisions of the
Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act, 2007), having its head office situated at Hospital Road,
Sivasagar, District-Sivasagar, Assam, Pin-785640 and the
petitioner No. 2 is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the
petitioner No. 1 Society.
3. The facts and relevant events leading to filing of the instant
writ petition are summarised herein below:
3.1. The petitioner Society is functioning under the
provisions of the Act, 2007 and has altogether 9,416 nos.
Page 4 of 32
of members/voters till 31.03.2025. It has its own bye-
laws which regulates its activities and functions besides
the Act, 2007 and other relevant statutory provisions as
applicable to a Cooperative Society.
3.2. The petitioner Society had constituted its
previous Board of Directors (In short “Board”) on
30.09.2020 and since the term and tenure of the Board is
for 5 (Five) years, the tenure of the previous Board was
to expire on 29.09.2025. Accordingly, in preparation to
hold the Annual General Meeting (AGM) and for
selection/election of the new members of the Board, the
petitioner No. 2, being the CEO, affixed a Notice on the
board of the Head Office on 19.08.2025 as per the
provisions of Section 26(3) of the Act, 2007.
Intimation/Notice about the aforesaid AGM to be held on
19.09.2025 was given to the Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Sivasagar, Assam on 30.08.2025
by the petitioner No. 2, receipt of which was
acknowledged on 01.09.2025 by the Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Sivasagar, Assam.
Page 5 of 32
3.3. In pursuance to the aforesaid Intimation/Notice
dated 30.08.2025, the AGM was held as scheduled at the
time and venue earlier notified but such meeting had to
be adjourned due to lack of quorum and rescheduled the
same on 26.09.2025. Such rescheduling of the AGM was
intimated by the petitioner No. 2 to the Deputy Registrar
of the Cooperative Societies, Sivasagar by a letter along
with necessary documents.
3.4. The AGM of the petitioner Society was held on
26.09.2025 and resolutions were accordingly taken after
discussions on the subjects as per the agenda items
which included election/selection of the Board.
Accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 wrote a letter by
submitting the proceeding of the said AGM to the Deputy
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sivasagar, Assam on
10.10.2025 giving the details of the proceeding.
3.5. In response to the aforesaid communications of
the petitioner No. 2, vide his letters dated 20.09.2025
and 10.10.2025, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, Sivasagar, Assam wrote a letter to the
Page 6 of 32
petitioner No. 2 on 04.11.2025 whereby the petitioner
No. 2 was intimated that there were violations of Section
34, Section 41 and Section 26(3) of the Act, 2007 and
therefore, the formation of the Board of Directors on
26.09.2025 was dissolved immediately and One-Man-
Management Committee would take over as per Sub-
section (6) of Section 41 of the Act, 2007. Accordingly,
the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sivasagar,
Assam refrained from approving the proceedings and
resolutions of the 35th AGM of the petitioner Society.
3.6. In reply to the aforesaid letter dated 04.11.2025,
the petitioner No. 2 submitted a written representation
before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Sivasagar, Assam on 05.11.2025 requesting him to
withdraw the letter dated 04.11.2025. By the aforesaid
representation, the petitioner No. 2 stated that Section
26(3), 34 and 41 of the Act, 2007 are incorrectly applied
in the instant case. He further pointed out that the letter
dated 04.11.2025 was time barred as the resolutions
passed and adopted in the AGM held on 26.09.2025 were
Page 7 of 32
deemed approved in terms of provisions of Section 45(1)
of the Act, 2007.
3.7. In response to the petitioner No. 2’s
representation dated 05.11.2025, the Zonal Joint
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Jorhat passed an order
dated 10.11.2025 on the basis of the report of the
Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sivasagar,
Assam dated 04.11.2025 whereby it was stated that the
petitioner failed to hold the AGM/Election within
stipulated time as per the provisions of the Assam
Cooperative Societies Act, 2007. It was also mentioned
that in terms of Section 39 of the Act, 2007, the Board
stood automatically dissolved. It was further stated that
in exercise of power conferred under Section 41 (6) of
the Act, 2007 and as per power of delegation, vide Govt.
Notification No. Coop: 141/2012/Pt./3 dated 03.05.2013,
appointed Sri Amal Mili, Sr. Inspector/Auditor of
Cooperative Societies, Office of the ARCS, Sivasagar
(respondent No. 6) to perform all functions of the Board,
to convene AGM/Election of the Petitioner Society and to
Page 8 of 32
constitute the Board within 90 days from the date of
appointment of the said respondent No. 6 at the cost of
the Petitioner Society.
3.8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid actions of the
respondent authorities especially that of the respondent
Nos. 3 and 4, the petitioners have assailed the impugned
letter dated 04.11.2025 and order dated 10.11.2025
respectively by filing the instant writ petition.
4. Notice in the writ petition was issued to the respective
respondents on 12.12.2025 and this Court has directed that till
next date, no steps be taken for holding the elections. Interim
order so passed on 12.12.2025 is still continuing. Parties have
exchanged their pleadings by filing affidavit-in-opposition and reply
thereto.
5. This Court has heard the submissions made by Mr. B.D.
Goswami, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well
as Mr. S. K. Talukdar, the learned Standing Counsel of Cooperation
Department, Govt. of Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1
to 5.
Page 9 of 32
6. Mr. B. D. Goswami, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the impugned actions of the respondents
in dissolving the Board of the Petitioner Society by invoking
Section 39 of the Act, 2007 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse as the
Petitioner Society had held its 35th AGM/Election on 26.09.2025 in
full compliance of the provisions of the Act, 2007 as well as the
bye-laws of the petitioner society. He submits that the illegal
action taken against the Petitioner Society in purported exercise of
power conferred under Section 41(6) on the alleged ground of
violation of Section 39 of the Act, 2007 is not at all applicable to
the case of the Petitioner Society as the petitioners held the AGM
of the Petitioner Society on 26.09.2025 after due notice etc. in
terms of the provisions of the Act, 2007.
7. Mr. Goswami, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits
that as per section 26(3) of the Act, 2007, the CEO of every
cooperative society is required to prepare a list of members of with
or without voting rights within 20 days of closure of the previous
year, which will be valid for the current financial year. He submits
that the list is then required to be displayed on the notice board of
the Head Office of the society so that non-satisfied members may
Page 10 of 32
appeal to the Board within 10 days and the Board is required to
finalize within 40 days of closure of the previous cooperative year
by affixing the same on the notice board of the Head Office of the
cooperative society. He submits that in the instant case, earlier
Board was constituted on 30.09.2020 and the last date of the term
of the earlier Board was 29.09.2025. Accordingly, a notice was
affixed on the Notice Board of the Head Office under section 26(3)
of the Act, 2007 for the purpose of holding the 35th AGM as well as
selection/election of the Board. Therefore, there was no violation
of Section 26(3) of the Act, 2007 in the instant case as alleged in
the impugned letter dated 04.11.2025. He further submits that
section 34 of the Act, 2007 outlines the quorum and procedures
for meetings of the General Assembly of a cooperative society and
the quorum for such General Assembly shall not be less than 10%
of the total eligible voting members and the quorum for a delegate
general body meeting shall not be less than 25% of eligible
delegates. He submits that if such quorum is not met, the meeting
shall be adjourned to a later date not later than 15 days. He
submits that if the subsequent meeting lacks a quorum, then the
presiding officer can proceed with the business that was originally
Page 11 of 32
planned, regardless of the members present. He submits that
section 41(6) of the Act, 2007 as mentioned by the respondent
authorities in their impugned letter and order respectively, does
not have any connection to the facts of the instant case. He
submits that section 41(6) of the Act, 2007 relates to the term of
office of the Directors and it says that Directors shall hold office for
the period for which they were elected and the newly elected
Directors shall assume office on the date of expiry of the said
period. Therefore, section 41(6) of the Act, 2007 has no
connection to the appointment of the One-Man-Management
Committee by the respondent authorities. In view of the aforesaid
provisions and taking into consideration the facts of the instant
case, Mr. Goswami, the learned counsel submits that the
impugned letter and the order were passed by the respondent
authorities without any application of mind, therefore, the same
are bad in law. He further submits that the Zonal Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Jorhat passed the impugned order dated
10.11.2025 only on the basis of the impugned letter dated
04.11.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative
Societies (DDRCS), Sivasagar, Assam without applying his
Page 12 of 32
independent mind or further investigation. He submits that the
Zonal Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Jorhat has added
one more new Section 39 of the Act, 2007 without any valid
reason as the requirement of holding AGM within 6 months of
closure of the financial year to transact the business as provided in
the Act, 2007 has been complied with by the Petitioner Society by
holding the AGM on 19.09.2025 and 26.09.2025 which is at least 4
days prior to the end of 6 months of the financial year, i.e.,
31.03.2025. Therefore, there was no scope for the respondent
authorities to resort to Section 39 of the Act, 2007.
8. Mr. Goswami, the learned Counsel for the petitioners while
referring to section 45(1) of the Act, 2007 submits that the
proceedings of all General Meetings and Special General Meetings
of every Cooperative Society complete in all respects as provided
in the Act, 2007 and Bye Laws shall be sent to the Registrar within
15 (fifteen) days from the date of competition of such meetings
with due acknowledgment and the Registrar shall give his approval
for the resolutions within 15 (fifteen) days of the receipt of the
proceedings. He submits that if no approval is received within the
aforesaid period, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been
Page 13 of 32
approved from the completion of such meeting with due
acknowledgement. He submits that such provision is clear and
specific and is created to avoid undue delay in the decision of the
authority. The law having stated that the proceeding shall be
deemed to have been approved, the same is also mandatory and
conclusive. In the instant case also, the same provision shall apply
and the resolutions are deemed to have been approved after the
expiry of 15 (fifteen) days. Therefore, the authorities shall lose
their powers to act after the expiry of the mandatory 15 (fifteen)
days. He submits that the Petitioner Society with the deemed
approval went on to hold the first meeting of the newly constituted
Board proceeding, which was duly submitted to the concerned
authority, vide letter dated 06.11.2025. Therefore, the impugned
letter and the order in the instant case having been passed after
the aforesaid 15 (fifteen) days’ period, are not sustainable under
the law and liable to be set aside and quashed. In support of his
submission that the provision of section 45(1) of the Act, 2007 is
mandatory, Mr. Goswami has referred to the following cases:
(i) Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. &Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2019) INSC 1188;
Page 14 of 32
(ii) Kamaleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in (1995)4 SCC 51;
(iii) Bhavnagar University Vs. Patiala Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. And
Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 111;
9. Per Contra, Mr. S.K. Talukdar, the learned Standing
Counsel of the Cooperation Department submits that the
impugned letter as well as the order were passed by the
respondent authorities absolutely as per the provisions of law as
contained in the Act, 2007. He submits that the required quorum
for the AGM was not there on 26.09.2025 and therefore, the AGM
cannot be termed as a valid AGM as per the provisions of the Act,
2007. He submits that, in the instant case, for a valid quorum,
10% of the shareholders is required, i.e., out of 9416 nos. of total
shareholders, 942 nos. However, only 87 shareholders were found
to be present in the instant case. He submits that clearly the
Petitioner Society failed to meet the requirement of the valid
quorum and therefore, there was no valid AGM in the instant case
in the eye of law. He submits that the report of the official
observer clearly provided that the AGM was held in violation of the
provisions of the Act, 2007 and therefore, the Board so elected,
Page 15 of 32
vide the AGM, cannot be legal and allowed to hold office of the
petitioner Society. He submits that there was also violation of the
provisions of 26(3) of the Act, 2007 as the CEO of the Petitioner
Society did not submit the list of members with right to vote, list of
members without right to vote and expired voters for the current
cooperative year to the office of the respondent authorities. He
submits and denied that the deeming provision under section
45(1) of the Act, 2007 is applicable in the instant case due to the
violations in holding the AGM as per the provisions of the Act,
2007.
10. In support of his argument regarding no quorum was met by
the Petitioner Society, Mr. Talukdar has referred to the case of
“The Guwahati Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd and Ors Vs.
Anil Kumar Kalita and 6 others (WA/348/2023″ decided by
the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court on
19.10.2023.
11. Mr. Talukdar, the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent authorities submits that under Section 41 of the Act,
2007 read with Rule 3(1) of the Assam Cooperative Societies
Election Rules, 2019 (Election Rules, 2019), for any cooperative
Page 16 of 32
society having election, the Election Authority shall arrange for
publication of Electoral roll before 30 days of the date of the
election. He submits that though the petitioners have contended
that the tenure of the Board was to expire on 29.09.2025 and with
that regard, a letter dated 30.08.2025 was issued to the
respondent No. 4 for conducting the AGM, the petitioners have
failed to submit a valid Electoral Roll of list of members with right
to vote, list of members without right to vote and expired voters
for the current cooperative year of the Petitioner Society. He
further submits that for any election of a cooperative society, due
process is required to be followed which are prescribed under Rule
4 (appointment of Returning Officer), Rule 5 (Arrangement of
Ballot Box and Ballot Papers), Rule 6 (Filling up and scrutiny of
nomination papers) etc. of the Election Rules, 2019. However, in
the instant case, the Petitioner Society has not followed the
aforesaid Rules.
12. Mr. Talukdar, the learned Counsel for the respondent
authorities submits that the instant writ petition is not
maintainable as the CEO of the Petitioner Society does not have
any locus standi to file the petition being not an aggrieved person
Page 17 of 32
in the instant case. He submits that the CEO being only an officer
of the Petitioner Society and he being not a member of the Board
which has been dissolved, he cannot be termed as person
aggrieved to file the instant case. In this connection, he referred to
the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2013)4SCC 465.
13. In reply, Mr. Goswami, the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners submits that Section 2 (l) of the Act, 2007 provides
for appointment of the CEO and he has filed the writ petition in a
representative capacity of the Petitioner Society. He submits that
the CEO being the person to look after day-to-day affairs of the
Petitioner Society, is absolutely having authority to represent the
Petitioner Society. He denies that any violations of the Election
Rules, 2019 have been committed while electing the Board during
the AGM. He further submits that in case of blatant illegality
committed, the Courts cannot shut their eyes and allow such
illegalities to remain. In this connection, he referred to the
following cases:
(i) M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Ors,
reported in 200(7) SCC 552;
Page 18 of 32
(ii) Mehsana District Central Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs. The State of
Gujarat, reported in 2004(2) SCC 463;
14. From the aforesaid submissions and the respective stand
taken by the contesting parties in the instant writ petition, though
several issues have been raised by the petitioners, the preliminary
issue that is required to be answered in priority is the issue of the
maintainability of the writ petition. It is seen from the affidavit-in-
opposition filed by the respondent authorities that no ground of
maintainability of the writ petition was taken by the respondent
authorities. However, during the hearing of the writ petition, Mr.
Talukdar, the learned Standing Counsel of the respondent
authorities has taken the ground of maintainability and an
opportunity was also provided to Mr. Goswami, the learned
Counsel of the petitioners to respond to the same. Therefore, this
Court finds the ground to be relevant in the instant case and
accordingly, shall proceed to consider the issue of maintainability
of the instant writ petition filed by the Petitioner Society as
petitioner No. 1 and the CEO of the petitioner No. 1 as the
petitioner No. 2.
Page 19 of 32
15. There is no dispute that a cooperative society is a distinct
legal entity which operates as an independent body corporate and
a cooperative society enjoys perpetual succession. In this
connection, section 117 of the Act, 2007 being relevant is
extracted herein below:
“117. Society to be a body corporate- Every registered cooperative
society shall be deemed to be a body corporate by the name under
which it is registered, with perpetual succession and a common seal,
and with power to hold property, to enter into contracts, institute and
defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary
for the purpose for which it was constituted.”
16. In terms of the provisions of the Act, 2007, a Cooperative
Society is managed by the Board of Directors which is elected by
the General Assembly of the Cooperative Society. The term
“Board” is defined under the Act, 2007 as follows:
2 [(g) “Board” means the Board of Directors or the Governing Body of
a Co–operative Society to which the direction and control of the
management of the affairs of a Society is entrusted to;]
16.1. The Constitution and functions of the Board of Directors are
provided under Section 35 of the Act, 2007 which is extracted
herein below:
Page 20 of 32
35. Board-(1) There shall be a Board for the management of every
cooperative society registered under this Act. The Directors shall be
elected in accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws. The
management of every cooperative society constituted in accordance
with the provision of this Act and the bye-laws shall vest in the Board:
Provided that in the case of a cooperative society newly registered
under this Act, the persons who have signed the application for the
registration of the cooperative society may appoint a promoter Board,
for a period not exceeding one year from the date of registration to
direct the affairs of the cooperative society and it shall cease to
function as soon as a regular board is constituted in accordance with
the provisions of this Act and the bye- -laws.
*[(2) The Board shall consist of fifteen number of Directors: Provided
that there shall be reservation of one seat of Director for the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and two seats for Women in
the Board of every Cooperative Society consisting of individuals as
members and having members from such class or category of
persons.]
*(3) The promoter Board appointed under the proviso to sub-section
(1) shall conduct the election of Directors within the period mentioned
therein.
Page 21 of 32
*(4) Every Director while exercising the powers and discharging duties
shall act honestly and in good faith and in the best interests of the
cooperative society and exercise such care, diligence and skill as a
reasonably prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances.
*(5) A Director who is guilty of misappropriation, breach of trust or
dishonesty resulting in loss or shortfall in revenue of the cooperative
society and is found guilty after an enquiry or inspection under Section
87 and Section 88 or after audit under Section 81, shall be personally
liable to make good that loss or shortfall, without prejudice to any
criminal action to which the Director may be liable under any law.
17. In the instant case in hand, the writ petition has been filed
by the cooperative society represented by the Chief Executive
Officer as well as the Chief Executive Officer himself as one of the
petitioners. The question arises as to whether the Cooperative
Society and the CEO can file a writ petition challenging an order of
the competent authority of the Cooperation Department which has
dissolved the Board of Directors elected and thereafter, appointed
an One-Man-Management Committee to perform all the functions
of the Board of Directors of the Petitioner Society and to convene
Annual General Meeting/Election to constitute the Board of the
Page 22 of 32
Petitioner Society within 90 days from the date of appointment of
the aforesaid One-Man-Management Committee?
18. The appointment, functions and powers of the Chief
Executive Officer being important in the instant case, the same are
referred to herein below:
“2 (l) “Chief Executive” means the individual, in paid or honorary
capacity, nominated or elected or appointed by the Board from among
members, Directors or others, in accordance with the bye-laws of the
society who shall perform such functions, and responsibilities and
exercise such powers as specified in the Act, bye-laws and assigned by
the Board;”
49. Chief Executive, his powers and functions and staff- (1)
1[((a) There shall be a Chief Executive, by whatever designation called
of every cooperative society to be appointed by the Board or by the
State Government. In the event of appointment of the Chief Executive
by the Board, he shall be a full time employee of the society]
(b)) The Chief Executive shall be the ex-officio member of the Board;
(c) Where the State Government stands guarantee for repayment of
any loan secured from any financial institution the Chief Executive may
be appointed by the State Government and salary and allowances
payable to other terms and conditions of service including pension,
Page 23 of 32
gratuity and other benefits of the Chief Executive shall be prescribed
by the Government;
(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law in force or bye-laws
of the society, the Chief Executive appointed by the Government shall
have full administrative control over the employees of the society in all
matters including transfer, posting and disciplinary action. However, in
case of dismissal of employees approval of the Board shall be
necessary.
(2) The Chief Executive shall be under the general superintendence,
direction and control of the Board and exercise the following powers
and the functions, namely:-
(a) day-to-day management of the business of the cooperative society;
(b) operating the accounts of the co–operative society and be
responsible for making arrangements for safe custody of cash;
(c) signing on the documents for and on behalf of the cooperative
society;
(d) making arrangements for the proper maintenance of various books
and records of the cooperative society and for the correct preparation,
timely submission of periodical statements and returns, in accordance
with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the byelaws;
Page 24 of 32
(e) convening meetings of the general body of the cooperative society,
the Board and the Executive Committee and other committees or sub-
committees constituted under provision of the Act and bye-laws and
maintaining proper records for such meetings;
(f) making appointments to the posts in the cooperative society in
accordance with the bye-laws;
(g) assisting the Board in the formulation of policies, objectives and
planning;
(h) furnishing to the Board periodical information necessary for
appraising the operations and functions of the cooperative society;
(i) to sue or be sued on behalf of the cooperative society;
(j) present the draft annual report and financial statements for the
approval of the Board within thirty days of closure of the cooperative
year;
(k) performing such other duties, and exercising such other powers, as
may be specified in the bye-laws of the cooperative society; (I) in case
of dispute between the Chief Executive and the Board in any matter,
the decision of the Registrar shall be binding on the both.
(3) Subject to other laws regulating employer–employee relations all
employees of a cooperative society shall be appointed, regulated and
removed by and be accountable to authorities within the cooperative
Page 25 of 32
society in accordance with the service conditions approved by the
Board:
Provided that in case of cooperative societies where State Government
holds more than fifty percent of Share Capital or guarantees
repayment of loan secured from any financial ‘institution, any upward
revision of pay and allowances of staff, shall require prior approval of
the State Government. The controlling authority of all staff shall be the
Chief Executive of the society.
19. From the above provisions regarding the powers and
functions of the Chief Executive Officer, it is discernible that the
CEO shall be an individual, in paid or honorary capacity, nominated
or elected or appointed by the Board from among members,
Directors or others, in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society
who shall perform such functions and responsibilities and exercise
such powers as specified in the Act, bye-laws and assigned by the
Board. It is also provided that in the event of appointment of the
CEO by the Board, he shall be a full-time employee of the
Cooperative Society. The CEO shall be under the general
superintendence, direction and control of the Board and exercise
the powers and the functions, like day-to-day management of the
business of the Cooperative Society, operating the accounts of the
Page 26 of 32
Cooperative Society, signing on the documents for and on behalfof the Cooperative Society, assisting the Board in the formulation
of policies, objectives and planning, present the draft annual
report and financial statements for the approval of the Board etc.
The CEO is also empowered to sue or be sued on behalf of the
Cooperative Society. Therefore, it is clear that the CEO receives or
derives its powers primarily under the aforesaid Section 49 which
are basically to support the Board and under the authority of the
Board. The CEO acts under the general superintendence, direction
and control of the Board. This makes it clear that without an
authorisation of the Board, the CEO does not have any
independent power to act on behalf of the Cooperative Society.
20. In the case in hand, it is stated that the CEO has been
appointed by the founding Board of the Cooperative Society. It is
not in dispute that, vide the impugned order dated 10.11.2025,
the Zonal Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Jorhat
mentioned in the order that the Board of Directors of the Petitioner
Society stood automatically dissolved under section 39 of the Act,
2007. Therefore, on the date of filing of the instant writ petition,
there was no valid Board of Directors existing in the Petitioner
Page 27 of 32
Society. In fact, the administration of the Petitioner Society wasgiven to one One-Man-Management Committee, the respondent
No. 6 to perform all functions of the Board of Directors.
Accordingly, in absence of the Board, the One-Man-Management
Committee is the authority to manage the affairs of the Petitioner
Society. The CEO has to act under the authority of the One-Man-
Management Committee as per the advice and instructions of the
One-Man-Management Committee. Therefore, it is clear that the
petitioner No. 2 being the CEO of the Cooperative Society does not
have any authority to file the instant writ petition either in a
representative capacity or in his individual capacity without any
authority from the One-Man-Management Committee, which has
been appointed by the competent authority, i.e. the respondent
authorities.
21. Another important aspect which has been raised by the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent authorities is that the
petitioners are not being a person aggrieved by the impugned
letter and the order, do not have any locus standi to file the
instant writ petition. This Court is in agreement with the
submission of the learned Standing Counsel of the respondent
Page 28 of 32
authorities. It is seen that neither the Petitioner Society nor the
petitioner No. 2, i.e. the CEO is aggrieved by the impugned letter
and order of the respondent authorities. Rather, in the instant
case, the aggrieved persons are the members of the Board of
Directors which has been dissolved by the respondent authorities.
In this connection, the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan
(Supra) relied on by the Standing Counsel for the respondent
authorities being relevant are referred to. Para 9 and 10 of the
aforesaid case being relevant are extracted herein below:
“9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted
to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court,
that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person
who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the
act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of
enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the
appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of
the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right
available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is
resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a
statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest
Page 29 of 32
of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has alegal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is
a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It
is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the
relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the
existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said
jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must
ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of
infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards
the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC
12; Saghir Ahmad &Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta
Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR
1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996
SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare
Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).
10. A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules.
Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon
a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does
not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary
injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose
right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised.
(Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR
Page 30 of 32
1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,AIR 1977 SC 1361).”
22. From the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down in the
aforesaid case ofAyaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (Supra), this
Court is of the view that neither the petitioner No. 1, i.e. the
Cooperative Society nor the petitioner No. 2, i.e. the CEO can be
termed as person aggrieved to have locus standi to file the instant
writ petition challenging the impugned letter dated 04.11.2025 and
the order dated 10.11.2025.
23. The cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners
have been considered. However, since those cases will not help
the arguments of the petitioners, the same are not required to be
discussed in details.
24. In view of the aforesaid findings arrived at by this Court, this
Court concludes that the instant writ petition deserves to be
dismissed on the ground of maintainability, being devoid of any
locus standi to file the same by the petitioners. Accordingly, the
instant writ petition is dismissed on the preliminary ground of
maintainability, raised by the respondent authorities.
Page 31 of 32
25. Interim order passed on 12.12.2025 stands vacated.
26. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Page 32 of 32
