Disposed

Matilal Dey v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Sept 2022WP(C)/5805/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged disposal of a complaint by the Registrar regarding manipulation of AGM dates by sitting officers of a milk co-operative society, relying on the Assam Cooperative Societies Act. Held that with a pending review petition, no need to go into merits; writ petition disposed through directions to the authority to pass a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Registrar to take up the review petition for consideration and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within four weeks.

Matilal Dey Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010175232022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5805/2022

¶5

MATILAL DEY

¶6

S/O. LT. MANORANJAN DEY, R/O. DADARPUR TOWN, WARD NO.9, JUMBASTI, P.O. AND P.S. BADARPUR, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM-788806.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

TO BE REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF COOPERATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶10

2:THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22.

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22.

¶12

4:THE ASSTT. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KARIMGANJ ASSAM.

¶13

5:THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (BOD)

¶14

OF BADARPUR PRIMARY MILK PRODUCTION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD.

¶15

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI ABDUL LATIF BADARPUR TOWN

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

WARD NO.9 JUMBASTI P.O. AND P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM-788806.

¶18

6:SRI ARUN PRASAD ROY

¶19

VICE-CHAIRMAN BADARPUR PRIMARY MILK PRODUCTION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. BADARPUR TOWN WARD NO.9 JUMBASTI P.O. AND P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM-788806

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 05/09/2022

¶26

Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Bordoloi,

¶27

learned Standing Counsel, Cooperation Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶28

It appears that the petitioner herein is the Secretary of the Greater Badarpur Primary Milk Production Co-operative Society Ltd., which was established in the year 2004. It further appears that the last AGM of the Society was held on 03/10/2021 for the year 2020-21. However, in view of Section 39 of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007, the AGM of the society for the said year was required to be held within 30/09/2021. Since the same was not done within the statutory period, hence, according to the writ petitioner, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 i.e. the Chairman and ViceChairman of the Society had lost their mandate to continue in office. According to the writ petitioner,

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

the respondent nos. 5 and 6 had manipulated the records by inserting 30/09/2021 in place of 03/10/2021 as the date of the last AGM so as to continue in office.

¶31

The petitioner has made a complaint before the respondent no. 2 bringing the aforesaid manipulation to the notice of the authorities. However, Mr. Laskar submits that instead of taking action against the guilty, by the order dated 04/08/2022, the complaint filed the petitioner was disposed of by the respondent no. 2, inter-alia, holding that the manipulation of record was carried out by the petitioner himself and, therefore, there is no infirmity calling for interference in the matter.

¶32

Aggrieved by the order dated 04/08/2022, the petitioner had also filed a review petition dated 12/08/2022. However, since no action has been taken in the matter till date, this writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, praying for an order directing the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to return back the proceeding book and also to set aside the order dated 04/08/2022 passed by the respondent no. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, I am of the view that since a review petition is pending before the authority, it would not be necessary for this Court to go into the merit of the case.

¶33

Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, I dispose of the writ petition by providing that the review petition filed by the petitioner on 12/08/2022 be taken up for consideration and be disposed by passing a speaking order.

¶34

The exercise, as directed above, be initiated and completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

sukhamay

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Matilal Dey v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matilal Dey v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azizul Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Md. Bodrul Islam Laskar and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Harun Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ashok Kumar Garg Contractor and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Raja Borah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Azad Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.