WP(C) 3837/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI Heard Mr. Y.S.Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs H.M.Phu kan, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and 2. Also heard Mrs. U.Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. M.Bhuyan, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 4. Though no affidavit has been filed by any of the parties, on the prayer of the l earned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, this matter has been t aken up for disposal at the admission stage. This writ petition has been filed by Gobindaganj Fakua Co-operative Society Ltd. , represented by its Chairman, Noni Gopal Das, challenging the orders dated 2.7. 11 (Annexure D) and the order dated 21.7.11 (Annexure-I) as well as with a pray er to direct the respondent authorities to allow the respondent No. 3 to continu e as Secretary of the Gobindaganj Fakua Co-operative Society Ltd.(hereinafter re ferred to as the Society ), pursuant to his appointment made on 6.10.2010 and t he approval order dated 11.1.2011 ( Annexure- B). The case of the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the res pondent No. 3 was to go on superannuation on 1.1.11, and in view of his invaluab le services to the society, in the Managing Committee Meeting held on 6.10.2010 , a resolution was adopted to appoint the respondent No. 3, Sri Amalendu Sen, as Honorary Secretary for 2 years w.e.f. his date of superannuation (01.01.2011) a nd that he would paid some monthly honorarium by the society . By an order d ated 11.1.2011, in exercise of power conferred under bye-law No. 27 of the Goan Panchayat Samabay Samity, the Addl. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Admn) a ccorded approval to the engagement of Shri Amalendu Sen, respondent No.3, in ter ms of the resolution No. 4 of the Managing Committee held on 6.10.2010 subject t o the condition that there cannot be any claim for provincialization of the pos t of the Secretary and that he shall be, for all intent and purposes, be an emp loyee of the society. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 by his order dated 2.7.2011 withdrew the resp ondent No.3 from the post of Secretary of the Co-operative Society and the respo ndent No. 4 was temporarily allowed to function as in-charge Secretary of the So ciety in question. In view of the aforesaid order dated 2.7.2011, once again a m eeting of the Managing Committee was held on 6.7.2011 and a resolution was also unanimously adopted reiterating that appointment of the respondent No. 3 is jus t and valid and, therefore, the meeting requested the Registrar, Co-operative So ciety, Assam to cancel the said order dated 2.7.2011. By an order dated 14.7.201 1, the respondent No. 2 cancelled the order dated 2.7.2011 and the respondent No . 3 was once again allowed to continue as in-charge Secretary of the society tem porarily. This order dated 14.7.2011,came to be cancelled by an order dated 21.7 .2011 (Annexure- I). Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders dated 2. 7.2011 and 21.7.2011 displayed total non application of mind of the respondent No. 2. He has also submitted that in view of the resolution adopted by the soc iety appointing the respondent No. 3 as in-charge Secretary for a period of 2 ye ars as Honorary Secretary , the respondent No. 2 had exceeded jurisdiction in ca nceling the appointment of the respondent No. 3 and in appointing the respondent No. 4 as in-charge secretary of the society in question. He has also submitted that no reasons are assigned as to why the orders dated 2.7.2011 and 21.7.2011 came to be passed. It is his contention that power to appoint the secretary of the society is vested in the Managing Committee and the society having exercised its power and such appointment having been approved by the competent authority of the Co-operative Department, cancellation of the orders thereof is wholly il legal. Therefore, he submits that the impugned orders are liable to be interfere d with and a further direction be given to the respondent authorities to allow t o respondent No. 3 to continue as secretary of the society in question. Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, on the contra ry, has submitted that the instant application, having regard to the nature of t he relief claimed by the petitioner, is not maintainable . He has also submitted that the respondent No.3 has already attained the age of superannuation and the re is no such provision under the Bye-laws to appoint a secretary on honorary ba sis. He has also submitted that Bye-law No. 27 also permits the authority of the Co-operative Department to appoint secretary, if the occasion so demands . Th e Managing Committee can appoint a full time secretary only after taking prior a pproval from the Registrar, Co-operative Society and the financial institutions from where loan etc. had been obtained by the society. Placing reliance on a jud gment of this court in Risheswar Neog Vs. State of Assam & others, reported in (1993) 1 GLR 184, the learned counsel has submitted that in the said case Bye-l aw No. 27 had fallen for consideration of this court and this court, on conside ration of the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 as we ll as the provisions of Assam Co-operative Society Rules, 1953 held that relatio nship between the Secretary and the society is that of a master and servant. In the case of Risheswar (supra), the secretary had challenged certain orders passe d by the society whereby he was removed from the post of secretary by the Managi ng Committee. This court held that such a petition is not maintainable under Art icle 226 of the constitution of India. It is also his contention that when the p erson aggrieved, if at all aggrieved, is not before this court, the present peti tion filed by the society is not maintainable. Mrs. U.Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 has submitted t hat she fully endorsed the submissions made by Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for t he petitioner. Mrs. Phukan, learned Govt. counsel has submitted that though no reasons are spel t out in the orders dated 2.7.2011 and 21.7.2011, no right of the society havin g been infringed, the writ petition is not maintainable in law. She contended th at even otherwise, the respondent No. 3 in the meantime had retired from service and the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Honorary Secretary is questiona ble. It is noticeable that the respondent No. 3 has chosen not to challenge the orde rs dated 2.7.2011 and 21.7.2011. The decision in Risheswar supra), had arisen, as has been noted earlier, against certain orders passed by the society removin g the petitioner from the office of the secretary. In the instant case, the orde rs have been passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies withholding the pe titioner as in-charge secretary of the society in question. In the factual matrix of this case, it may not really be necessary to decide as to whether the decision in Risheswar (supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. The power of the Registrar and/ or other authorities of the Co-operative Societ ies, if the occasions so demands, to appoint a Secretary, has not been disputed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to draw th e attention of this court to any particular provision whereby the society can ap point its secretary on honorary basis. There is also no averment that the Chair man of the Society has been authorized by the Society to approach this court by filing the instant writ application. Even if there had been any such authorizat ion, then also the same would not have made any difference. When the person aggr ieved, namely, the respondent No. 3, has chosen not to challenge the orders in q uestion, this court is of the considered opinion that the present application is not maintainable as no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.