GAHC010009452025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WA/26/2025 DIBRU DANGARI RIVER PART 1 MEEN SAMABAY SAMITY LTD POST OFFICE- DIGHALTARANG, DISTRICT- TINSUKIA, ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN RANJIT DAS AGED ABOUT 54 YRS, S/O-

KAMINI DAS, R/O- VILLAGE DIGALTAARANG, POST OFFICE-

DIGHALTARANG, P.S- BAGHJAN, DIST. - TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786151 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, CO-

PERATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06.

2:THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERTIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22.

3:THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERTIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22. 4:BIKASH DAS S/O-LATE SACHINDRA MOHAN DAS R/O-VILLAGE-GUIJAN PO-RANGAGORA DISTRICT-TINSUKIA ASSA B E F O R E –

–

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

23.02.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. S. Banik, learned Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Cooperation Department, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4, who has also been served with notice.

Several writ petitions [WP(C) 6243/2023 and other connected writ petitions] were filed against the order of automatic dissolution of the Board of Directors of Dibru Dangari River Part-I Meen Samabay Samity Limited, a cooperative society.

A learned Single Judge of this Court, while deciding such writ petitions, recorded that on 30.09.2023, for the operation of the provisions contained in Section 39 of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2007”), the cooperative society stood dissolved on and from 30.09.2023 and, therefore, there was nothing for the Court to decide except holding such writ petitions to be infructuous.

The fact was that 6 (six) months had passed and Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the society in question was not convened.

This order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in review (Review Petition No. 163/2024) on the ground that AGM could not be held because of the non-naming of the nominee(s) of the Government, about which supporting document was not presented before the learned Single Judge while the cluster of writ petitions were being decided.

The review petition was dismissed on the ground that these two documents could not be said to be not known to the review petitioners exercising due diligence in the matter.

On a plain reading of the facts of this case and the two judgments, namely, the judgments passed in the afore-noted writ petitions and in the review petition referred to above, it is apparent that for whatever reason, the AGM was not held. A one-man committee was constituted, which has till today been running the functions of the Board of Directors of the cooperative society. In fact, 90 days have passed but no further order has been passed only because of the pendency of this writ appeal questioning the correctness of the review order.

Since the Board of Directors stood dissolved by operation of Section

39 of the Act of 2007, and we find no reason to differ with the order passed in the review petition, the only course left open to us is to dismiss this appeal so as to ensure that further steps are taken in terms of Section

41(6) of the Act of 2007.

Writ appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant