Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010091932026 2026:GAU-AS:13983 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2475/2026 JISHU KUMAR NATH S/O LATE PRANAY NATH, R/O UMEDNAGAR, P.O. UMEDNAGAR, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 16 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIAL SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM, COOPERATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM KHANAPARA GHY 22 3:THE ZONAL JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES SILCHAR ZONE P.O. SILCHAR 01 DIST. CACHAR ASSAM. 4:THE ASSTT. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES HAILAKANDI P.O. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN 788151 5:FOYZUL HOQUE MAZUMDAR Page No.# 2/9 S/O LATE AJOB UDDIN MAZUMDAR R/O VILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT VII P.O. KATAGAON P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 6:MD MOTIBUR RAHMAN MAZUMDER S/O LATE ASMAN ALI MAZUMDAR R/O VILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT VII P.O. KATAGAON P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 7:MINA BEGUM LASKAR W/O MALIK USTAR LASKAR R/O VILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT VIII P.O. KATAGAO P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 8:ASAB UDDIN LASKAR S/O LATE TOSIR ALI LASKAR R/O VILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT IV P.O. KATAGAON P.S LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 9:RANJIT ROY S/O RABINDRA ROY R/O VILL. MIRIRGOOL P.O. MIRIRGOOL P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 10:SULTANA BEGUM LASKAR S/O LATE MOSTAFA AHMED LASKAR R/OV ILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT VII P.O. KATAGAON P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. Page No.# 3/9 11:ABDUL HAKIM MAZUMDAR S/O ILIAS ALI R/O VILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT VI P.O. KATAGAON P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 12:UBAIDULLA BARBHUIYA S/O LATE MONFOR ALI BORBHUIYA R/O VILL. RAJESWARPUR PT VII P.O. KATAGAON P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 13:MOHAMMAD ALI ZULFIKAR LASKAR S/O RAJOB ALI LASKAR R/O VILL. RAJYESWARPR PT VIII P.O. KATAGAON P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 14:ALI AHMED LASKAR S/O MOIFAR ALI R/O VILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT VIII P.O. KATAGAON P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 15:RUBI YEASMIN CHOUDHURY D/O LATTE JALAL UDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O VILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT VII P.O. KATAGAON P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 16:HOZAIL AHMED MAZUMDER S/O ABDUL KALAM MAZUMDAR R/O VILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT VII P.O. KATAGAON P.S. LALA Page No.# 4/9 DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 17:ANAM UDDIN LASKAR S/O SUNUMIA LASKAR R/O VILL. RAJYESWARPUR PT VI P.O. KATAGAON P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CO OP, MR B SINHA (FOR CAVEATOR)R5TO8,10,11,12,14,15,SHAHIDUL AMIN (FOR CAVEATOR)R5TO8,10,11,12,14,15,MR. H ISLAM (FOR CAVEATOR)R5TO8,10,11,12,14,15 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 22.09.2026 Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Council, assisted by Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent(s) and Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Council for the Cooperation Department. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impune Order dated 07.05.2026 issued by the appellate authority, i.e., Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam Khanapara, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 111 of the Cooperative Societies Act 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”). Page No.# 5/9 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while serving as secretary of Rajyeswarpur Sammamay Samabai Samiti Ltd, Hailakandi, a meeting was held by the BOD in terms of the Notice dated 28.11.2024 and by the said meeting, the petitioner has been removed and the respondent No. 13 has been inducted to the said post. The ARCS Hailakandi thereafter by letter dated 07.12.2024 allowed the respondent No.13 to act as secretary and the petitioner was directed to hand over the charges. The petitioner thereafter on 10.12.2024 filed an appeal under Section 111 of the Act of 2007 before the respondent No. 3 and while admitting the appeal for hearing, an interim order dated 11.12.2024 was passed by staying the operation of ARCS letter dated 07.12.2024. Challenging the said order dated 11.12.2024, the BOD filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No. 6945/2024, wherein this Court by judgment in order dated 09.05. 2025 was pleased to set aside the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2024 on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable regarding appointment or removal of the secretary as the registrar has no jurisdiction. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 174/2025. The said appeal, along with the analogous matters, was disposed of by judgment and order dated 07.04.2026, whereby the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside and the respondent No. 2 was directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of one month. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2026, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be Page No.# 6/9 rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Section 111 of the Act of 2007 reads as under: “111. Appeal or Review- (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided to the contrary an appeal shall lie to the Registrar from the decisions made under this Act or Rules framed thereunder by any Government Officer liquidator appointed under Section95. (2) The Registrar may review any order passed by him at any time within sixty days from the communication of such order. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act or Rules, no appeal shall lie to the” State Government against any order of the Registrar, except on a question of law, and provided such appeal is prefer-red within sixty days of the communication of such order. (4) Any appellate authority and the Registrar in case of review may pass any stay order pending any appeal or review before such an authority, and may award costs against any party appealing or petitioning for review if such appeal or review petition is considered false, vexatious or frivolous by the authority concerned. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act where with the previous sanction in writing or on requisition by the Reserve Bank of India, a Cooperative Bank- (a) is being wound up; or (b) in respect of which a scheme of amalgamation or reorganization is given effect, no appeal thereof shall lie or be permissible without the sanction or requisition of the Reserve Bank and that shall not be liable to be called in question.” 6. The appellate authority, while disposing of the appeal, observed as follows: “ORDER In pursuance of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court judgement in WA No 174/2025 dated 07.04.2025. a hearing was arranged on 07-05- 2026 at the Office Chamber of the undersigned in matters of appeal petition by Sri Jishu Kumar Nath, who was serving as the Page No.# 7/9 Secretary of Rajyeswarpur SS Ltd, Hailakandi. The hearing was attended by: 1. Sri Debashish Mitra ---------- ARCS, Hailakandi. 2. Mohammed Ali Zulfikar Laskar ----Secretary, Rajyeswarpur SS Ltd. 3. Sanjay Kr. Barman ------------ Ex 5.0, Rajyeswarpur SS Ltd. 4. Nur Mohammad Ali ------------ O.M.Rajyeswarpur SS Ltd. 5. Rajib Ahmed Laskar --------- S.O, Rajyeswarpur SS Ltd. 6. Jishu Kumar Nath ------------Petitioner. Heard the petitioner and respondents. Also perused the relevant records and documents submitted by petitioner and respondents. The Petitioner in his appeal stated that the Chairman of Rajyeswarpur SS Ltd. in the meeting of BOD dated 04.12.2024 fraudulently kept blank space in the resolution register so that he can include a different subject and thus added resolution No.5 appointing his relative Md. Ali Zulfikar Laskar as Secretary which was not at all discussed in the meeting However records were verified and it was found that there was no proof of inserting the said resolution as mentioned in the appeal petition. Therefore the appeal of the petitioner is rejected.” 7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the appellate authority clearly indicates that the same is cryptic and bereft of adequate reasons. The order does not disclose any meaningful consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal or the materials placed before the appellate authority. Except for recording that the relevant records were verified and that there was no proof of insertion Page No.# 8/9 of Resolution No. 5, no reasons have been assigned as to how such conclusion was arrived at. The impugned order, therefore, does not reflect proper application of mind by the appellate authority. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, upon instructions, submit that the present writ petition may be disposed of at this stage, without entering into the merits of the controversies involved in the lis, by remanding the matter to the appellate authority for consideration and disposal afresh in accordance with law. 9. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 07.05.2026, this Court is satisfied that the said order is cryptic and does not contain adequate reasons demonstrating proper application of mind. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, the present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2, being the appellate authority, to rehear and reconsider the appeal afresh and dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, and all questions of fact and law are left open for consideration by the appellate authority in accordance with law. Page No.# 9/9 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant