Heard Mr. S. Kataki, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned standing counsel for the Cooperation Department for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The learned counsel Ms. J. Bora appears for the Liquidator of STATFED (respondent No.3).

2. The petitioner’s claim on account of the closure of operation of the oil mill unit under the STATFED, was rejected on 28.8.2009 (Annexure-M) by the Liquidator of STATFED and this is what is challenged here. According to the petitioners, they suffered loss and damage due to sudden closure of the STATFED’s oil mill unit, which they were operating, under the agreement dated 2.9.2003 (Annexure-A). The Liquidator declared that the claimant had defaulted in making payment of the usage charge and monthly royalty and hence direction was issued to pay the arrear amount to the other side.

3. The petitioner does not challenge the legality of the impugned order on merit but Mr. S. Kataki, the learned counsel submits that hearing was not afforded to the affected party and therefore the Liquidator’s order is legally unsustainable. In support of his contention, Mr. Kataki relies on Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2008) 14 SCC 151 and submits that since the decision of the Liquidator result in “civil consequences” for the petitioner, the same should have been preceded by hearing.

4. On the other hand, Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned standing counsel for the Cooperation Department submits that the petitioners’ claim arise out of the contractual agreement dated 2.9.2003 and therefore such claim should appropriately be raised in the Civil Court, where full opportunity would be available to establish the bonafide of the claim. The departmental lawyer further submits that the ratio of Sahara India (Firm) (Supra) is in the context of a pre-decisional hearing in a proceeding under Section 142 (2-A) of the Income Tax Act and therefore the said ratio can have no relevancy in the present case, where the petitioner’s claim is based upon the agreement executed with the STATFED on 2.9.2003 (Annexure-A).

5. Representing the 3rd respondent, Ms. J. Bora, the learned counsel refers to the counter affidavit filed on 10.12.2009 by the Liquidator of STATFED and she contends that when the demand for the user charge for the plant and machinery of STATFED and the guaranteed royalty was raised, the defaulting party made a false claim to contest the demand of the STATFED. She further submits that a speaking order was passed by the Liquidator and since the same is not challenged on merit, the Civil Court should be the proper forum to examine the claim arising out of the closure of the terms of the agreement.

6. The Assam State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers’ Federation Ltd. (STATFED) was registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 and they invited offers to operate the STATFED’s oil mill at Amingaon. Thereafter the deed of agreement was signed on 2.9.2003 (Annexure-A), whereby the M/s. Pragjyotish Food Products (writ petitioner) agreed to import mustard oil in bulk and to sale them after re-packaging, under the ‘TRIPTI’ brand name. Under the agreement terms, the storage tank/godown and other facilities available in the STATFED premises was permitted to be used by the 2nd party and in turn, user charge and royalty was agreed to be paid by the 2nd party to STATFED. In the event of any disagreement, Clause 23 of the agreement provides for arbitration of the dispute.

7. In the meantime as the STATFED had failed to hold the Annual General Meeting to elect the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Society since inception and also defaulted on other fronts and was non-functional in majority of their Branches, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued the notification on 14.6.2006 (Annexure-C), canceling the registration of the Society and a departmental Officer was appointed as the Liquidator for the dissolved society.

8. As the agreement