SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1980

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
Md. Tultul Hussain, S/o. Md. Tafajul Hussain – Petitioner 
Versus
The State Of Assam, rep. By the principal secretary to the govt. Of assam, co-operation dept. And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.6948 of 2022
Decided On : 04-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Adv. Mr. N. Gautam.
For the Respondents: Mr S.K. Talukdar, Mr P. Hazarika.

Quorum for cooperative society elections is satisfied with a majority of present Directors, allowing elections to proceed even with vacant posts.

Headnote:(A) Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 - Section 43(5) - Bylaw 21 and Bylaw 25 of Kheremia Samabay Samiti Limited - Dispute regarding the quorum for Board meetings and validity of elections - Court upheld that the election held with 11 Directors present (quorum of 9) was valid despite some posts being unfilled. - Court refused to declare the election invalid based on absence of all 15 Directors, stating the society can function with fewer members as long as quorum is met. (Paras 7, 12, 14, 15)

(B) The legal principle that quorum is satisfied with 9 Directors, allowing functional governance and election despite vacancies was emphasized. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an elected Director, contested the legitimacy of the elections for President and Vice-President due to the lack of a full Board and the presence of defaulter members. The elections were upheld as valid since 11 of 14 Directors were present.

Findings of Court:
The election conducted was valid as the quorum required was met; thus, the Board could function.

Issues: Whether the election process was maintainable in the absence of all 15 elected Directors.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the presence of a sufficient number of Directors to satisfy quorum is adequate to validate Board meetings and elections, affirming cooperative governance principles.

Result: Writ petition stands disposed of.

Table of Content
1. petition for directing elections due to unfilled board posts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding quorum and validity of elections. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court analysis on quorum and election validity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. order for urgent steps to fill board vacancies. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

Heard Mr K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr N Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr S K Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3; and Mr P Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 to 13, who are the elected members of the Board of Directors of the Kheremia Samabay Samiti Limited, Tingrai Chariali, Hoogrijan, Dibrugarh, Assam.

2. This writ petition had been instituted in the year 2022 by the petitioner, who professes to be a duly elected Director of the Kheremia Samabay Samity Limited (hereinafter, referred to as-“the Society”, for short).

3. The case of the petitioner is that the term of the Board of Directors of the Society expired in the year 2021, and due to reasons not explained in the writ petition, the election to the Board of Directors could not be conducted immediately. When the process for election to the Board of Directors was initiated in the year 2022, the date fixed for filing of nomination papers by the candidates intending to participate in the election was fixed on 08.08.2022. The nomination of 14 numbers of the members of the Society including the petitioner was declared to have been found valid. The general meeting and election of the Society was held on 18.08.2022, and the petitioner was found to have been elected to one of the 15 (fifteen) posts of Directors in the Society. Relevant to state here that there were 14 candidates contesting for the 15 (fifteen) posts of Director. Although the petitioner was declared to have been elected uncontested to the post of Director, he filed a representation before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 31.08.2022, with a request not to give approval to the proceedings, till the matter of disqualification acquired by some of the elected Directors was decided in terms of the applicable bylaws, the Act and the Rules. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred WP(C) No. 6095/2022, before this Court, praying for directions to the respondents to hold fresh elections of the general meeting of the Society. The said writ petition was disposed of at the prayer of the petitioner to withdraw the same and avail alternative remedy.

4. The election of 11 numbers of Directors out of the 14 numbers of the candidates participating in the contest for the post of Director had been approved by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dibrugarh, on 20.09.2022. The election of 3 (three) numbers of defaulters was not approved. The Secretary of the Society, thereafter, informed the petitioner and others that the first meeting of the newly elected Board of Directors would be held on 22.09.2022, at 11:00 am, for election of President and Vice President of the Society.

It is alleged in the writ petition that in the said meeting, the petitioner and 2 (two) others had raised objections to the proposal to hold elections for the post of President and Vice-President of the Society, till the settlement of the issue of the defaulter members of the Society. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the proposed election to the post of President and Vice President was proceeded with, despite the objections raised by the petitioner and two other members. The Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies had approved the proceedings of the meeting dated 23.09.2022, on the same day itself. The writ petition claims that a representation was filed on 28.09.2022 before the Assistant Registrar, which, however, had remained unanswered till the filing of the writ petition. The writ petition challenges the approval given to the election of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top