WP(C) 63/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms . R. Chokraborty, learned State counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitionera represent the Managing Committee of M/s. Parghat Kaibar ta Min Silpa Samabai Samity Ltd. which is a registered Co-operative Society und er the Cooperative Societies Act, 1949. There is no dispute that the petitioners ’ Managing Committee is a elected body and its term, but for the impugned order, dated 20.12.07 would have expired on 27.05.10. 3. Alleging certain irregularities in managing the affairs of the Society, the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Society by his Annexure-D letter dated 17.12.07 addressed to the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative, directed him to instruct the Managing Committee of the petitioners to take a corrective measure within 15 days. However, before the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society could act upon the direction of the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Socie ty and before expiry of the stipulated period of 15 days, the Registrar of the C o-operative Societies, Assam passed the impugned order dated 20.12.07 (Annexure -E) placing the Managing Committee under suspension. By the same very order, the respondent No. 6 has been appointed as the one man ad hoc committee to manage t he affairs of the Society and he has also been entrusted with the task of holdin g AGM within 90 days from the date of issuance of the order. 4. It is the definite case of the petitioners that before passing the impug ned order dated 20.12.07 the Managing Committee was not put to any kind of notic e. Further case of the petitioners is that since the impugned order has got the effect of desolution of the Managing Committee, the Registrar of the Co-operativ e could not have done so without first complying with the requirements of Sectio n 36 of the Act. 5. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which the reflecti ons made in the impugned order dated 20.12.07 have been reiterated. According to the respondents, since there was mismanagement of the affairs of the Society on the part of the petitioners, there was no alternative than to invoke Section 32 (5) of the Act towards passing the impugned order dated 20.12.07. 6. Section 32 (5) of the Act pertains to dissolution of the Managing Body a nd consequent appointment of ad hoc body. Such dissolution of the Managing Body is upon failure of the Managing Body to hold the meeting within the stipulated p eriod as indicated in Section 32 (4). Section 32 of the Act pertains to holdin g of AGM by the Co-operative Societies. Thus, as submitted by Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, invocation of the provision of Section 32 ( 5) of the Act comes into operation only when there is failure on the part of the offending body to hold AGM. 7. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondents that the peti tioners failed to hold AGM. The petitioners’ Managing Body has been suspended o n the basis of the allegation of irregularities committed by it. Admittedly the petitioners were not provided with opportunity of being heard to meet the allega tions. The specific statements in this regard made by the petitioners in the wri t petition have not been denied in the counter affidavit by the respondents. 8. Although the impugned order dated 20.12.07 speaks only of suspension of the Managing Committee, but in effect it is dissolution of the Managing Committe e of the Society. By the impugned order while suspending the petitioners’ Managi ng Committee, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Assam has appointed o ne man ad hoc committee, i.e. the respondent No. 6, not only to manage the affai rs of the Society, but also to hold the AGM including election. If that be so, virtually the effect of the impugned order dated 20.12.07 is the dissolution of the Managing Committee represented by he petitioners. 9. Section 36 of he Act provides for dissolution or reconstruction of the M anaging Body. When the Registrar is satisfied after inspection of the enquiry U/ s. 60 for reasons to be recorded to be in writing, he may after giving the offen ding body an opportunity to state its case, direct that a specific meeting of th e General Assembly to be called within the time to be specified to dissolve the Administrative Council, managing body or committee concerned and to elect a new one. Thus, the principle of natural justice is inbuilt in Section 36. 10. In the instant case, in the name of suspending the Managing Committee of the petitioners, the Registrar in fact, has dissolved it without affording any opportunity of being heard to the dissolved body. 11. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State counsel upon reference to the provisio n of Section 36 of the Act, submits that the Registrar of the Co-operative Socie ties, Assam in an emergent situation is entitled to suspend the offending body. As noted above, although the impugned order dated 20.12.07 speaks of suspending of the petitioners’ Managing Body, but in effect, the committee has been dissolv ed and that too, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitio ners. The effect of the impugned order is the dissolution of the Managing Commit tee and if that be so, could not have been so dissolved without following the la id down procedure. 12. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed relianc e on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramchandra Keshav Adke vs. Govind Jodi Ch avare and others reported in (1975) 1 SCC 559 to emphasize that where a power i s given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that w ay or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. In the instant case, the procedure envisaged under the Act has not been followed. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed setting aside and qua shing the impugned order dated 20.12.07 (Annexure-E) with the liberty to the aut hority to deal with the mater in accordance with law, if so advised. It is expec ted that the petitioners’ Managing Committee will run the affairs of the Society strictly in accordance with law for betterment of the Society.