Rongpur Co-Operative Society Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Assam And 8 Ors

1) Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the Cooperative Societies and

Ms. S.T. Bokth, learned counsel for the Caveator/ respondent no.6.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 14.07.2021 issued by the

respondent no.4, whereby the respondent no. 6 was restored as Chairman of the petitioner no. 1 society.

3) In view of the nature of grievance raised in this writ petition, let a notice returnable on 06.09.2021 be issued.

4) The respondent nos. 1 to 5 are represented by their learned standing counsel and respondent no. 6 has appeared by filing caveat, as such, requisite

extra copies of the writ petition be furnished to the learned standing counsel within 2 (two) days. The petitioners shall take steps within 2 (two) days

for service of notice on respondent nos. 6 to 9 by registered post with A/D. Liberty is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioners to collect

postal receipt numbers from the Registry and to submit postal track report to the Registry prior to the next date of listing.

5) Heard all sides on the prayer for interim relief. The learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the

respondent no. 6 have both vehemently opposed the prayer for interim relief. The learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 had justified

the impugned order by submitting that no document is annexed to the writ petition to show that the resolution of the Executive Committee was

subsequently ratified. It was also submitted that the petitioner no.2 and others had filed W.P. (C) 5786/2019 with grievance that order dated

02.08.2019 was coming in the way to hold AGM and accordingly, this Court by order dated 09.08.2019 had stayed the order dated 02.08.2019 and

allowed the petitioners to hold AGM, directing the respondent authorities not to give approval to the resolution adopted in AGM. Thereafter, by order

dated 20.11.2020, this Court had expressed the view that since the petitioners’ only grievance was the order dated 02.08.2019, and that with the

holding of the AGM on 15.09.2019, the writ petition had become infructuous for all practical purpose and accordingly, the interim order passed on

19.01.2019 was vacated with an observation that the respondent authorities were at liberty to grant approval to the proceedings of AGM of the

petitioner no.1 society in accordance with law, if so advised. Thus, it is submitted that the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting held on

21.08.2019 was never confirmed either in the next meeting of the Board of Directors, nor they were approved by the respondent no. 4 and therefore,

in terms of the provisions of Section 45(1) of the 2007 Act, the purported appointed of the petitioner has Chairman had lost its force.

6) It is seen that prima facie the petitioner has been able to show that the respondent no. 4 had approved the proceedings of the adjourned AGM held

on 15.09.2019 vide approval letter dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-12). In this AGM, the petitioner no.2 was the Chairman, and that vide letter dated

15.10.2019 (Annexure-14), the respondent no.4 had also forwarded the specimen signature of the petitioner as Chairperson and the Secretary of the

Society to the Branch Manager, SBI, Udharband Branch to enable them to operate the bank account jointly. Thus, having seen that the respondent

no.4 had taken a specific stand vide Annexures-12 and 14 as indicated herein before, the Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent no.4,

could not have taken a contradictory stand vide the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 to the effect the orders dated 31.07.2019 and 02.08.2019,

impugned in the said writ petition, had revived and came into force merely because W.P.(C) 5786/19 was dismissed as infructuous as the AGM had

been held and the grievance of the petitioner was redressed. The petitioner has been able to prima facie show that the subsequent approval letter

dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-12) and letter dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure-14) by the respondent no.4 would render the letters dated 15.09.2019 and

02.08.2019 as otiose. Thus, the impugned order dated 14.07.2021, holding that that the respondent no.6 was entitled to hold the office of Chairman and

that the petitioner no. 2 was no longer entitled to hold the office of the Chairman of the petitioner no. 1 Society is liable to be interfered with in the

interregnum. Moreover, the respondent no. 6 had appeared as caveator, but the learned counsel for the said respondent no. 6 could not produce any

document to show that as per the time limit provided in sub-section (2) of Section 43 of 2007 Act, the special meeting was held on receipt of written

requisition or that why the consequences as provided in Sub-Section (3) of Section 43(3) of 2007 Act would not have been made applicable in this

case in hand.

7) Therefore, in light of the discussions above, the Court has no hesitation to stay the operation of the impugned order bearing no. CCRF/3/73/Pt-

IV/95 dated 14th July, 2021 issued by the respondent no.4 till further orders.

8) List on 06.09.2021, awaiting affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and for service report on the private respondent nos. 7 to 9.