WP(C) 6385/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Biswas, l earned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior c ounsel assisted by Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for respondent No .5. I have also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, appe aring for the State respondents as well as Mr. S. Khound, learned Standing Couns el, BTC. The petitioner, who is holding the dual charge of Liquidator, STATFED, o ffice of which is located at Guwahati, is aggrieved by the Annexure-6 order date d 23.11.2010, issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam, by which he has been relieved from the dual charge of the Liquidator. In his place, it is the respondent No.5, who has been appointed as the Liquidator in addition to hi s normal duties as Zonal Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Guwahati Zone. Be it stated here that the petitioner presently holds the post of Additional Reg istrar of Cooperative Societies, BTAD, Kokrajhar. It was by Annexure-2 order passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societ ies, Assam, the petitioner while was holding the post of Zonal Joint Registrar o f Cooperative Societies, Guwahati, was also allowed to act as Ex-officio Liquida tor of Cooperative Societies for STATFED. By Annexure-5 order dated 2.7.2010, th e petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Additional Registrar of Cooperative So cieties. In the order, it was mentioned that the petitioner would continue to ho ld the charge of Liquidator, STATFED. As noted above, the petitioner was given t he charge of the Liquidator, STATFED, Guwahati, when he was in the cadre of Zona l Joint Registrar. Referring to Section 66 of Assam Cooperative Societies, 1949, it is the plea of the petitioner that the impugned order having been issued at the behest of the Principal Secretary, BTAD, the same is liable to be interfered with. As p er Section 66(1), where an order of cancellation of the registration of a Societ y is made by the Registrar under Section 65, he may appoint any person to be the Liquidator of the Society and may also remove such person and appoint another i n his place. Mr. P.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Regist rar of Cooperative Societies who has exercised the aforesaid power and jurisdict ion vested in him by provision of Section 66(1), must not be guided by any extra neous consideration. According to him, the impugned order having been passed at the dictation of the BTAD authority, the same is not the power and jurisdiction that can be said to have been exercised by the Registrar, in accordance with the said provision. On the other hand, Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel and Mr. S. Khound, learned Standing Counsel, BTAD, submit that the impugned order has been issued in the exigencies of service in public interest, no fault can be attribut ed to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In addition, Mr. Khound has also p roduced the OM dated 16.10.2004, laying down the power and jurisdiction of the B TAD authority, in terms of which (Clause-G), the BTC shall have full control ove r the officers and staff connected with the entrusted subjects, working in the B TC area and shall be competent to transfer the officers and staff within the BTC area. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel has also produced the records a nd I have perused the same. On perusal of the records, what has transpired is that the Principal Sec retary, BTC, by his letter dated 10.11.2010, addressed to the Registrar of Coope rative Societies, Assam had apprised that due to the dual charge vested with the petitioner, the functioning of the BTC has suffered, inasmuch as, the petitione r remains 3 (three) days at Kokrajhar and remaining three days of a week at Guwa hati to perform the duties entrusted to the dual charge of the Liquidator. On re ceipt of the said letter, the file was process and eventually with the relevant notes, the matter was placed before the Registrar, who in consideration of the m atter approved the proposal for relieving the petitioner from the dual charge of Liquidator. As noted above, the petitioner, at the time of providing with the dual c harge of Liquidator was holding the post of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societi es. Thereafter, he was promoted to the cadre of Additional Registrar by Annexur e-5 order dated 2.7.2010. Thus, the substantive cadre is Additional Registrar. B y relieving him from the charge of Liquidator, which was an additional charge in addition to his own duties and responsibilities as Additional Registrar, the pe titioner has not been deprived of his status, responsibilities and duties. In an y case, an additional charge cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Further, on perusal of the records, I am not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that the impugned order is the product of any extraneous consideration and that the same has been passed by dictation of the BTAD authority. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure-6) and consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed.