Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Registrar’s Disapproval of Cooperative Election | Delay in Appeal Under Rule 27 Fatal | Upholds Elected Board’s Right to Governance
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi has set aside an order issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam, which had disapproved the elections held for the Odali Samabai Samity Limited and appointed a One Man Committee in its place. The Court directed that the elected Board of Directors be allowed to discharge their duties until the completion of their term, subject to compliance with statutory rules and regulations. The Court further held that the Registrar’s order was unsustainable in law and that the statutory scheme of self-governance under the Assam Cooperative Societies Act and Rules had to be preserved.
The matter arose from elections conducted for Odali Samabai Samity Limited, a cooperative society located in Hojai district, Assam. A notice for elections was published on 24 August 2023. On the same day, the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer were appointed. The elections were held on 23 September 2023, and the counting of votes took place on 25 September 2023. The counting continued into the early hours of 26 September 2023, after which results were declared. The petitioners, along with seven others, were declared elected to the Board of Directors, while respondent numbers 6 and 7 were not elected.
Following the declaration of results, respondent number 6 submitted an application on 26 September 2023, alleging anomalies in the counting process and seeking a recount. On 27 September 2023, a joint application for recount was submitted by respondents 6 and 7. The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hojai (ARCS), issued a communication on 29 September 2023 directing the Returning Officer to enquire into the matter.
On 6 October 2023, respondents 6 and 7 filed an appeal before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies challenging the election process. On the same day, the ARCS rejected the recounting application on the grounds of untimely submission and non-payment of requisite fees, after considering a report called from the Returning Officer. Thereafter, respondents 6 and 7 filed a writ petition (WP(C)/6206/2023) before the Gauhati High Court. The Court dismissed the writ petition on 10 November 2023, noting that an appeal was already pending before the Registrar and entertaining the writ would amount to parallel proceedings.
Subsequently, on 24 January 2024, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies disapproved the elections and appointed a One Man Committee. The Registrar cited as grounds: (i) the discrepancy in the result sheet, where the Returning Officer had signed with the date 25 September 2023 although results were declared after midnight on 26 September 2023; and (ii) a report from the Superintendent of Police, Hojai, noting that ballot boxes had been kept in a Guest House before being deposited at the police station.
The petitioners obtained a copy of the show-cause notice issued to the Returning Officer regarding the discrepancy and the Returning Officer’s reply dated 17 February 2024. In the reply, the Returning Officer explained that the incorrect date was a human error, as the counting continued past midnight into 26 September 2023, and he inadvertently signed with the earlier date.
The petitioners challenged the Registrar’s order, contending that the grounds cited were not valid. They argued that the keeping of ballot boxes in a Guest House had no bearing on the results since this occurred after counting and declaration of results. They also submitted that the self-governance principle under the Cooperative Societies Act was undermined by replacing an elected Board with a One Man Committee.
The respondents, represented by the Cooperation Department and private counsel, contended that there were serious anomalies in the election process. They argued that Rule 2(u) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Rules, 2019 defined “Strong Room” as a police station, outpost, or treasury office, and the keeping of ballot boxes in a Guest House violated this requirement. They also submitted that electricity disruption during counting raised concerns of irregularities. Further, they asserted that the Registrar had broad powers under Rule 27 of the 2019 Rules and Section 41(6) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act to disapprove elections and appoint a One Man Committee. It was also argued that the petition was defective for not impleading all complainants.
In reply, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appeal before the Registrar was filed beyond the statutory period of three days from declaration of results under Rule 27. They contended that no order of condonation of delay had been passed, which rendered the Registrar’s jurisdiction invalid.
The Court examined the record, including the complaints, the Returning Officer’s reply, the Superintendent of Police’s report, and the Registrar’s impugned order.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi recorded that the central ground for the Registrar’s order was the date discrepancy. The judgment stated: “It however transpires that in the result sheets, the Returning Officer had put the signature as 25.09.2023 which is the principal ground of passing the impugned order.” The Court noted that the Returning Officer had clarified in his 17 February 2024 reply that it was a human error caused by the counting continuing past midnight. The Court observed: “The aforesaid aspect has been explained by the Returning Officer in his reply to the show-cause notice submitted on 17.02.2024 terming the same as human error.”
On the allegation regarding storage of ballot boxes, the Court stated: “The aspect of keeping the ballot boxes in a Guest House before it was taken to the police station was not a part of the complaint on which the appeal has been filed.” The Court further recorded: “The aforesaid aspect, even if taken to be a relevant one, would however have to be examined from the point of view that such keeping of ballot boxes… was after completion of the counting and declaration of the results. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same would not have a material bearing on the results of the election and can at best be termed as a mere aberration on the procedure of the election process.”
Regarding the statutory authority of the Registrar under Section 41(6) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, the Court observed: “The power under Section 41(6) of the Act can be exercised only under the following conditions: (i) When the Board fails to arrange for holding election before the expiry of the term of the Board or Delegates. (ii) Where there are no Directors remaining on the Board. Neither of the aforesaid conditions is present in the case at hand.”
The Court further addressed the question of limitation under Rule 27 of the Assam Cooperative Societies Rules, 2019. It recorded: “The results were declared on 25.09.2023 and the appeal was filed on 06.10.2023 which is beyond the limitation prescribed of 3 days. The appeal has mentioned about the said delay which makes it apparent that the respondent nos. 6 and 7 were aware of the aspect of limitation. The impugned order however does not even make a passing remark as to a consideration for condonation of such delay.”
On the principle of statutory compliance, the Court stated: “It is a settled position of law that when a period of limitation is prescribed, unless the delay is condoned the adjudicating authority cannot assume jurisdiction.” It added: “Though in a given case, the delay can be condoned, what is required is that there has to be some deliberation and discussion as to why the delay was condoned which is not found in the instant case.”
The Court concluded that the scheme of the Cooperative Societies Act and Rules was directed at promoting self-governance through elected members. It recorded: “The scheme of the Act and the Rules is to have a self-governance through elected members and unless the grounds set forth are overwhelming, such powers are to be exercised in a restricted manner.”
After considering the submissions and statutory framework, the High Court issued clear directions. The judgment stated: “Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam is set aside.” The Court directed that: “The elected Board of Directors be accordingly allowed to discharge their duties till completion of the term subject to fulfillment of all Rules and Regulations.”
It further ordered: “The writ petition stands allowed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.” The Court also directed that: “The records in original be handed over to the learned Standing Counsel, Cooperation Department.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. I.A. Talukdar, Ms. N. Rahman, Mr. B. Hussain
For the Respondents: Shri S.K. Talukdar, Standing Counsel, Cooperation Department; Ms. M. Barman, Government Advocate, Assam; Shri H. Das, Counsel; Mr. B. Sharma
Case Title: Md Abdul Hasib and 7 Ors v. The State of Assam and 6 Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:11440
Case Number: WP(C)/1506/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi
