Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 4Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5661 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 4Ors on 24 June, 2025

                                                                  Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010077732025




                                                            2025:GAU-AS:8500

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

                            Case No. : WP(C)/2016/2025

         AINAL MIYAN AND 3ORS
         S/O-SUKHI MIYAN R/O-GUMA P. O. -GUMAPHULBARI P. S. -TARABARI,
         DISTRICT-BARPETA, ASSAM PIN-781302

         2: NUR HOQUE
          S/O-LATE TOLAJUDDIN
         R/O-BALIDHARI
         P. O. -CHENIMAARI
         P. S. -TARABARI

         DISTRICT-BARPETA

         ASSAM PIN-781302

         3: SAHED MIYAN
          R/O-BALAPARA.
          P. O. -GUMAPHULBARI P. S. -TARABARI
          DISTRICT-BARPETA
         ASSAM PIN-781302

         4: ANUWAR HUSSAIN
          S/O- HAVE BAUDDIN

          R/O-BALAPARA.
          P. O. -GUMAPHULBARI P. S. -TARABARI
          DISTRICT-BARPETA
          ASSAM PIN-78130

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-6
                                                                              Page No.# 2/7


            2:THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
            ASSAM
             KHANAPARA
             GHY-22

            3:THE ADDL. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
            ASSAM
             KHANAPARA
             GHY-22

            4:THE ZONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
            ASSAM
             GUWAHATI ZONE
             BHANGAGARH
             GUWAHATI-05

            5:THE ASSTT. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

             BARPETA
             ASSAM
             PIN-781301

            6:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
             BARPETA
            ASSAM
             PIN-78130

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B K DAS,

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CO OP, GA, ASSAM

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

24-06-2025

1. Heard Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned Standing counsel, Co-operation Department for the respondents.

Page No.# 3/7

2. The petitioners claim to be the shareholders of Co-operative Society, namely, Uttar Baguribari Samabay Samittee, (hereinafter referred to as Society), located in the district of Barpeta. It is the contention of the petitioners that as the Board of Directors of the Society had failed to hold its Annual General Meeting (AGM) for the period of 2021- 2022, in terms of Section 39 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2007), the Board of Directors of the society was dissolved and in exercise of its power under Section 41(6) of the Act, 2007, the Zonal Joint Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, Guwahati Zone under order No. NGPS.1/2012/Pt-II/394 dated 1 st November, 2021, appointed one Senior Inspector/Auditor of Co-operative Societies to perform all functions of the Board and to convene the AGM of the society to constitute the Board of Directors within a period of 90 (ninety) days at the cost of the society.

3. According to the petitioners, even after such order of dissolution dated 01.11.2021, the aforesaid Board of Directors continued to function illegally and illegally removed the then Secretary of the Society from his service by convening the meeting on 02.02.2023.

4. With the aforesaid allegations, the prayers are made in this writ petition, to declare all the decisions/resolutions of the aforesaid Board of Directors as illegal and not sustainable in law including the decision of removal of the then Secretary of the society and to reinstate him in service.

5. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent No. 2, whereby it is brought to the notice of the Court that earlier the Society preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5907/2022, assailing an order dated 20.04.2022 of the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the said writ petition was already closed by an order dated 22.01.2025 observing that pursuant to an interim order dated 12.09.2022 passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the AGM for the society was held and the new body had taken over the charge.

6. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Talukdar, learned Standing counsel, Co-operation Page No.# 4/7

Department contends that being the shareholders of the society, the petitioners ought to have aware of the fact that the AGM was already held. According to Mr. Talukdar, learned Standing counsel, the prayer and the pleadings made in this petition clearly show that the petitioners are proxy to the removal of the Secretary in question.

7. Accordingly, Mr. Talukdar, contends that the writ petition is required to be dismissed with an exemplary cost for misleading this Court and for suppressing the vital material facts. It is further contended by Mr. Talukdar, that the petitioners in paragraph Nos. 11 & 12 of the writ petition, made scurrilous attack on the officers and the Standing counsel of the Department by name without any material basis or without arraying them as party respondents. Therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed for filing such false and frivolous writ petition.

8. In this context, Mr. Talukdar, has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc. reported in AIR 2016 SC 345 that while observing that a global search of cases pertaining to filing of false affidavit indicates an alarming increase in the last 15 years as compared to the numbers of such cases prior to said period, upheld the cost imposed by the High Court of Jharkhand of Rs. 10 lakhs on the petitioner for filing a false or misleading affidavit before the Court.

9. Issue notice, returnable forthwith. As parties are duly represented, no formal notice is required to be issued. Perused the materials available on record including the statements made at paragraph Nos. 8, 11 & 12 of the writ petition.

10. The projection that was made in this writ petition, is having no basis at all, inasmuch as, the allegation of the petitioners that the Board of Directors continued to function illegally even after its dissolution in terms of the order dated 01.11.2021 is not a fact as record reveals. It is on record that the meeting of the Board of Directors was held as permitted to be held by this Court under its order dated 12.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 5907/2022 and the new Board of Directors, had also in the meantime taken the charge. Therefore, it is not acceptable proposition that the petitioners, who claimed to be Page No.# 5/7

the conscious shareholders and approached this Court, are not aware of the aforesaid development. Therefore, the basic premix that an illegal Board continued even after order of dissolution dated 01.11.2021 stands rejected.

11. Paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition, is basically related to the grievance of the petitioners as regards the removal of the then Secretary of the Society by the Board of Directors and such grievance, cannot be entertained by this Court at the behest of the petitioners that too based on misleading projection that such decision was taken by an already dissolved Board.

12. Now coming to the allegations made in paragraph Nos. 11 & 12 of the writ petition. This Court has seen that Mr. Talukdar, is correct in contending that such scurrilous attacks are not acceptable, more particularly, against the Standing counsel of the Department that too without any cogent material. The allegation that Mr. Talukdar, learned Standing counsel along with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others, had indulged in illegal activities in exchange of money, is totally uncalled for and in the considered opinion of this Court, without any material, the same is liable to be rejected on the face of it and therefore, such irresponsible/ scurrilous statement, more particularly, against the Standing counsel, Co-operation Department, is liable to be deleted/removed from the record of the proceeding.

13. The petitioners have filed two additional affidavits, one is dated 23.04.2025 and another is dated 13.05.2025. In the affidavits filed by the writ petitioner Ainal Miyan at paragraph 2, took a stand that the petitioner could not place entire relevant facts in his pleadings and that inadvertently, the names of some persons including the name of one learned counsel, were stated at paragraph 12 of the writ petition. According to the writ petitioners, as stated in the said affidavit, due to inadvertent mistake, it was inserted and paragraph 12 is having no relevancy and was inadvertently inserted. It was also stand that in view of the aforesaid fact, they had instructed their counsel to withdraw the writ petition on the very first date. Another stand has also been taken at paragraph 3 of the affidavit that there was no intention to attack personally anyone and the petitioners did Page No.# 6/7

not want to cause any prejudice to the reputations of the officers and the learned counsel. In the additional affidavit dated 13.05.2025, they clarified that the pleading was due to some miscommunications and misconceptions.

14. It is correct that the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for permission to withdraw this petition, however, looking at the conduct and objection raised by the learned Standing counsel, Co-operation Department and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court declined to allow such prayer and proceeded on the merit.

15. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court and totality of the matter, when specific statements are made in paragraphs 8, 11 & 12 of the writ petition, by filing the additional affidavit, the petitioners cannot cure such defects, more particularly, after serious objections being raised by the learned Standing counsel, Mr. S.K. Talukdar, on the first date, when this matter was taken up by this Court. Therefore, though this Court has restrained itself from initiating proceeding against the petitioners for making wrong statements on oath before this Court, however, this Court is also of the opinion that an exemplary cost should be imposed upon the petitioners as deterrent.

16. This Court for the reasons recorded hereinabove and based on the materials available on record, is of the unhesitant view that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and frivolous litigation for undue gain.

17. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed with the following directions:-

                              (i)                    This writ petition stands dismissed with a
                              cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to be paid by the
                              petitioners jointly.

                              (ii)               The aforesaid amount be deposited before

the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Barpeta within a period of 45 (forty five) days from today.

                              (iii)              In the event, such amount is not deposited
                                                                        Page No.# 7/7

before the DLSA, Barpeta within the aforesaid stipulated period, the same may be treated as arrears of land Revenue and the DLSA shall proceed to recover the same through the Office of the Collector, Barpeta in terms of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913.

                      (iv)                The statement made at paragraph 11
                      underlined with green pencil mark by this Court and the
                      whole paragraph 12 be removed from the record by
                      Registry.

                      (v)              The Registry is directed to furnish a copy of

this order to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Barpeta .

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant