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 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 - B E F O R E – 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? 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 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 5 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 6 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 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 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 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 10 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 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 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 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 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; (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, 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 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 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; (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 20 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: 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 22 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 Petitioner Society within 90 days from the date of appointment of the aforesaid One-Man-Management Committee? 18. 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, 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; (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 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 Cooperative Society, signing on the documents for and on behalf of 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 Society. In fact, the administration of the Petitioner Society was given 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 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 of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal 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 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 32 of 32 25. Interim order passed on 12.12.2025 stands vacated. 26. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant