M/S Gauripur Coop Fishery Society ... vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2287 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010041602021




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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/1555/2021

            M/S GAURIPUR COOP FISHERY SOCIETY LTD
            GAURIPUR, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM 783331, REPRESENTED BY ITS
            PRESIDENT SRI SHIBEN NAMASUDRA,

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
            OF ASSAM, COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

            2:THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
            ASSAM. KHANAPARA
             GUWAHATI 781022
             KAMRUP M ASSAM

            3:THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G)
             KHANAPARA
             GUWAHATI 781022
             KAMRUP M ASSAM

            4:THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

             DHUBRI
             ASSAM
             783301

            5:M/S GERAMARI GAON PANCHAYAT MIN SAMABAY SAMITY LTD.
            VILLAGE BAGURAPARA
             PO ASHARIKANDI
             DIST DHUBRI
            ASSAM
             78333

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M K CHOUDHURY
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/5


Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                           ORDER

23-09-2021

1. Heard Shri M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Khound, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Cooperation Department, Assam, represents the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 whereas Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel is present for the respondent no. 5.

3. Considering the subject matter and the submissions advanced and also as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this case is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The facts in brief are that in pursuance to a tender process for settlement of Gr. No. 1/87 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part-I & Satakuri Nadi Fishery under the Gauripur Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, the petitioner, the respondent no. 7 and others had participated in the same.

5. Though on comparison of the rates, the bid of the respondent no. 5 was found to be the highest, it is the case of the petitioner that a particular certificate pertaining to distance was obtained surreptitiously and was incorrect. The matter was enquired into and the allegations of the petitioner having found to be correct, the said certificate dated 23.06.2020 was cancelled.

6. The further case of the petitioner is that his representation before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society, Dhubri, regarding overlapping of area was rejected in a mechanical manner for which the petitioner had preferred an Page No.# 3/5

appeal before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam. The appeal was heard by the Respondent No. 3 on 30-09-2020, however, the orders were reserved.

7. The petitioner thereafter had filed Writ Petition (C) No. 5216/2020 before this Court and a direction was issued on 11.02.2021 to the Registrar to dispose of the appeal within 10 days from the date of the order. The appeal was accordingly disposed of vide an order dated 20.02.2021 by which the same was rejected.

8. Amongst various grounds, the petitioner has urged that the hearing was done by the Respondent No. 3, Smti. Kabita Rani Das. However, the impugned order dated 20.02.2021 was passed by the respondent no. 2 - Manoj Kumar, who is the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies.

9. The learned Senior Counsel submits that without even going into the inter-se merits of the dispute, on this technical ground alone, the matter is liable to be remanded for consideration and disposal strictly in accordance with law.

10. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao & Ors. vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court 308.

11. In paragraph 31 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that if one person hears and another person decides, then the requirements of personal hearing becomes an empty formality. For ready reference, paragraph 31 of the said judgment is extracted herein below:-

"31. The second objection is that while the Act and the Rules framed thereunder impose a duty on the State Government to give a personal hearing, the procedure prescribed by the Rules Page No.# 4/5

impose a duty on the Secretary to hear and the Chief Minister to decide. This divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. Such a procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure."

12. Ms. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, Cooperation Department fairly submits that the impugned order was passed by the Registrar by only taking into account of the direction of this Court requiring the Registrar to dispose of the appeal. She, however, does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law advanced by the learned Senior Counsel.

13. Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that in the event the matter is remanded for a fresh consideration, the remand should be only on account of the technical ground as advanced by the learned Senior Counsel without making any observation / opinion on the inter-se merits of the parties.

14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the limited ground urged on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Senior Counsel and also taking into consideration the settled position of law, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 20.02.2021 is not sustainable in law and the same is accordingly set aside.

15. It is, accordingly, directed that the matter be remanded to the respondent no. 2, the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Assam who would take on board the appeal of the petitioner and decide the same by giving opportunities to all the affected parties strictly by adhering to the due process of law. The Page No.# 5/5

decision taken should be an independent one without being influenced by the earlier order which has been passed and without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order. The entire exercise of disposal of the appeal be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

16. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant