WP(C) 6791/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) This writ petition has been filed by a shareholder of Chahari Mo uza Samabai Samity Limited in the district of Nagaon, a Society registered under the provisions of Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949 (in short, the Act ) c hallenging the order dated 26th November, 2010 passed by the Registrar of Cooper ative Societies, Assam reviewing its earlier order dated 27th October, 2010, on the basis of the application filed by the respondent No.7 on 4th November, 2011. By order dated 27th October, 2010, the elected Managing Committee headed by th e respondent No.7 as Chairman, was temporarily dissolved in the interest of the general shareholders of the Society and an officer of the Cooperative Department was appointed to function as Managing Committee until further order. [2] I have heard Mr. K.K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, M r. J. Handique, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5(a) and Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. I have also heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel, who was appointed as Amicu s Curiae to assist the Court vide order dated 23rd December, 2010. [3] Referring to the enquiry report dated 6th July, 2010 submitted b y the Sub-Registrar of Cooperative Societies (M), Nagaon and also the complain f iled by few of the shareholders of the said Society including the petitioner dat ed 16th June, 2010 relating to defalcation of the fund of the Cooperative Societ y and mismanagement by the elected body, it has been submitted by the learned co unsel for the petitioner that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies being satis fied that the elected body is not being able to manage the Society and is acting against the interest of the general shareholders passed the order dated 27th Oc tober, 2010 temporarily dissolving the Managing Committee of the said Society wi th a view to facilitate an impartial enquiry into the affairs of the Society, wh ich was reviewed by the Registrar vide order dated 26th November, 2010 at the in stance of the Minister of the Department, who vide the note dated 1st November, 2010 directed the Registrar to allow the said Managing Committee to continue imm ediately. The learned counsel submits that though Sub-Section (2) of Section 80 of the Act empowers the Registrar to review its own decision, he has to exercis e such power independently and not being influenced by any other authority inclu ding the departmental Minister, as has been done in the instant case. The learn ed counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 26th November, 2010 needs to be interfered with and the matter may be remitted to the Joint Registr ar of Cooperative Societies for taking a final decision relating to the dissolut ion or otherwise of the elected body since vide order dated 27th October, 2010 p assed by the Registrar, such elected body was temporarily dissolved. Referring to the notification dated 24th December, 2009, as has been produced by the learn ed State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5(a), it has been submitt ed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power of the Registrar und er Section 80 of the Act having been delegated to the Joint Registrar of Coopera tive Societies, the entire matter now should go back to the Joint Registrar, as the Registrar by the impugned order dated 26th November, 2010 had made up his mi nd to allow the elected body to continue pursuant to the direction issued by the departmental Minister in the communication dated 1st November, 2010. It has al so been submitted that the Joint Registrar, in view of the aforesaid Government notification dated 24th December, 2009, can exercise the power of the Registrar as conferred by Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 36 after making an enquiry, as required under Section 60 of the Act, power for which was also delegated to t he Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies by the aforesaid Government not ification dated 24th December, 1990. Mr. Dey further submits that since there a re serious allegations relating to the defalcation of the fund of the Society, n ecessary direction may also be issued for making required enquiry and investigat ion into such allegation and to punish the person found to be guilty of such def alcation. [4] Mr. Handique, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5(a) has also submitted that the power conferred on the Registrar unde r Section 60 and Section 36 (1)(2) as well as under Section 80 (1) are delegated by the Government by issuing the notification dated 24th December, 1990, in ter ms of the provisions contained in Section 3(2) of the Act, to the Additional Reg istrar and Joint Registrar, respectively, and as such, such power can be exercis ed by the Additional Registrar and the Joint Registrar. Mr. Handique further su bmits that since the Registrar initially vide order dated 27th October, 2010 pas sed the order for temporary dissolution of the Managing Committee, which, howeve r, has subsequently been reviewed vide order dated 26th November, 2010 and as th ere are certain allegation against the functioning of the said Society, apart fr om allegation of defalcation of the Society’s fund, an enquiry is required to be conducted by the Registrar or the Additional Registrar, as required under Secti on 60 of the Act and thereafter, to take necessary action against the person, wh o may be found guilty, including the dissolution of the elected body of the Soci ety, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 36 of the Act. The learned S tate Counsel, however, has submitted that as because the departmental Minister h as issued the communication dated 1st November, 2010, it does not necessarily le ads to the conclusion that the Registrar’s order dated 26th November, 2010 is in fluenced by such order of the departmental Minister. [5] Mr. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 a nd 7 has also submitted that though the departmental Minister issued the communi cation dated 1st November, 2010 to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, it ca nnot be said that the Registrar was influenced by the direction issued by the de partmental Minister. It has also been submitted that it is apparent from the imp ugned order dated 26th November, 2010 that the Registrar has passed the order re viewing the earlier order dated 27th October, 2010 on the basis of the materials available on record and not on the basis of the directions contained in the Min ister’s communication dated 1st November, 2010. Mr. Mondal further submits that it is the Secretary of the Society, who is guilty of defalcation of the Coopera tive Society’s fund as well as for mismanagement, who did not cooperate with the elected body. The learned counsel, however, is not adverse to the contention o f the learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5(a) for makin g an enquiry by the appropriate authority relating to the functioning of the Sec retary of the Society. [6] Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that since there is allegation and counter allegation relating to defalcation of fund by the Cooper ative Society, it requires enquiry and investigation by the Bureau of Investigat ion of Economic Offence (BIEO), Government of Assam. [7] I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings of the parties. [8] The Managing Committee headed by the respondent No.7 as Chairman was elected in the proceeding of the Annual General Meeting held on 11th Decemb er, 2009. During the continuance of the said Society, certain allegations were levelled by some shareholders including the petitioner vide complain dated 16th June, 2010 addressed to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In the said com plain, serious allegations of defalcation of the fund of the Cooperative Society has been made against the elected body, more particularly, against the responde nt No.7. Allegations of mismanagement and also acting against the interest of th e shareholders as well as the Cooperative movement have also been made in the sa id complain. It appears that a general meeting thereafter, was called on 22nd M ay, 2010, where certain resolutions were adopted. According to the report submi tted by the Sub-Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the Chairman of the Committe e was annoyed with the Secretary of the Society for adopting certain resolutions relating to the dissolution of the Managing Committee and as such, certain page s of the proceeding book were torn by him. The Sub-Registrar in the said report dated 6th July, 2010 has also recommended the Registrar of Cooperative Societie s for taking appropriate action against the Managing Committee. The Registrar o f Cooperative Societies thereafter, on being satisfied that the elected body is acting against the interest of the general shareholders of the Society temporari ly dissolved the Managing Committee headed by the respondent No.7, which amount to suspension, with a view to facilitate an impartial enquiry into the allegatio ns levelled. Within few days of passing of such an order, the departmental Mini ster issued a communication to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 1st Nov ember, 2010 for allowing the elected body to continue immediately. The Registra r thereafter, passed the order dated 26th November, 2010, reviewing its earlier decision dated 27th October, 2010, without, however, going into the allegations levelled against the elected body including its Chairman. [9] Sub-Section (2) of Section 80 of the Act empowers the Registrar to review its earlier decision. A statutory authority when conferred with power to review its earlier decision taken, it has to exercise the power objectively and on the basis of the material available before him, without being influenced by any other authority. An order passed by a statutory authority must appear to have been passed without any interference by anyone. From the communication da ted 1st November, 2010 issued by the departmental Minister, it appears that a sp ecific direction was issued to the Registrar to reinstate the Managing Committee , which was temporarily dissolved by the Registrar vide order dated 27th October , 2010. The Registrar within few days from receipt of such communication has pa ssed the impugned order. Hence, it cannot be ruled out that the Registrar was n ot influenced by the direction issued by the departmental Minister vide communic ation dated 1st November, 2010, though being the statutory authority he is to ta ke a decision independently and on the basis of the materials made available on record. That apart, as noticed above, the Registrar while passing the said orde r did not refer to the allegation levelled against the Managing Committee. [10] Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act empowers the Government to appoint persons to assist the Registrar and also to delegate to any such pers ons or to any other Government Officer all or any of the powers under the Act, b y general or special order. The Government of Assam in exercise of the said pow er issued the notification dated 24th December, 1990 delegating the power confer red on the Registrar under Section 60 of the Act, i.e. the power of the Registra r to make an enquiry into the affairs of the registered Society, apart from othe r powers, to the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies. By the said not ification, the power of the Registrar to dissolve a registered Society as confer red by Section 36 (1) and (2) has also been delegated to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, apart from the Registrar’s power to hear the appeal under Sub-Section (1) of Section 80 of the said Act. [11] Since the order dated 26th November, 2010 appears to have been p assed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on the basis of the directions c ontained in the communication dated 1st November, 2010 issued by the departmenta l Minister, the said order dated 26th November, 2010 cannot stand the scrutiny o f law and hence set aside. However, the Managing Committee having been dissolve d temporarily on the basis of certain allegations made and on the basis of the a foresaid report submitted by the Sub-Registrar and the power of making enquiry b y the Registrar into the affairs of the Society under Section 60 of the Act as w ell as the power under Section 36(1)(2) of the Act for dissolution of a Society have been delegated, the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies is direct ed to make an enquiry relating to the affairs of the Society and to submit the r eport to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies for taking a decision in t hat matter relating to the allegations levelled against the Society as well as d issolution of the Managing Committee. The same shall be done within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment an d order passed today alongwith the copy of the writ petition and its annexures a ppended thereto to be submitted by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar and Additional Registrar. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on receipt of the enquiry report to be submitted by the Additional Registrar of Cooperativ e Societies, shall pass a speaking order, within the aforesaid period of time, a fter hearing all concerned parties. Keeping in view the allegations made in the complain dated 16th June, 2010 filed by few of the shareholders including the p etitioner. The Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offence (BIEO), Government of Assam is also directed to look into the allegations made in the complain dated 10th June, 2010 and to make an enquiry and in the event of finding any truth on such allegations, necessary follow up action shall be taken by the BIEO. A repo rt in that regard shall also be submitted to the Registrar General of this Court within 2 (two) months from today. [12] The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.