WP(C) 5758/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner who claims himself to be a shareholder of Tengagu ri Samabai Samity Ltd. (for short hereafter referred to as the Samity) seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court to nullify the order dated 14/15/12/2 009 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, in the appeal pref erred by him questioning the validity of the proceedings of the Election/Annual General Meeting of the said Samity held on 27/10/2009. 2. I have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. M. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. H.M. Phukan, learned State Counsel, Gove rnment of Assam and Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7, C hairman of the Elected Body of the Samity. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioner in short is that the Samity h aving failed to hold its Election/Annual General Meeting in due time during 2009 -2010, an adhoc one man Committee was constituted for conducting the same. The s aid Committee initially fixed 13/10/2009, which was objected to by the other sha reholders amongst others on the ground that the voters’ list was outdated. Accor ding to the petitioner, though the date of the Election/Annual General Meeting w as postponed till 27/10/2009, the anomalies in the voters list subsisted. Inspit e of the objections raised by him, election was held as scheduled on 27/10/2009. The petitioner has alleged that votes were cast on the basis of a voters’ list, which showed members already dead, genuine voters shown as defaulters, double e ntry of share holders etc. Proxy votes were also cast in the name of dead voters . Being aggrieved by the proceedings of the election, the petitioner preferred a n appeal before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam, under the Assam C ooperative Societies Act, 1949 (for short hereafter referred to as the Act). The appeal having been dismissed, he is before this Court. 4. No affidavit in opposition has been submitted by any of the resp ondents. However, as this Court while issuing notice on 21/7/2009 kept in abeyan ce the operation of the impugned order, the respondent No. 7 filed an interim ap plication registered as M.C. 1259/2010 for vacation thereof. By order dated 17/5 /2010, this Court declined to pass any order on merits with the observation that the impugned order would be subject to the final decision to be rendered in the writ petition. The respondent No. 7 has offered this interim application as his affidavit in opposition in the writ proceeding. 5. Mr. Mazumdar while referring to the impugned order in extenso ha s insistently urged that as the satisfaction of the Registrar of Cooperative Soc ieties, Assam, with the voters list used in the election was replete with irreco ncilable anomalies, the conclusion to the contrary that the AGM/Election of the Samity was held peacefully and as per Rules and Bye Laws framed thereunder is pa tently illegal and ought to be interfered with. The learned Sr. Counsel contende d that this is more so as on similar considerations the said authority had inter fered with the Election/AGM of the Bonagaon GPSS Ltd. vide his order dated 30/1 1/2009. As the very basis of a valid election is the voters’ list, Mr. Mazumdar has urged that the existing errors and incongruities in the document used in the election per se vitiated the process. 6. Mr. Konwar has questioned the locus of the petitioner to maintai n the assailment. According to him, not only the petitioner had taken a chance b y participating in the election contending for the post of Chairman of the Socie ty, he has withheld the said fact from this Court which only projects lack of bo nafide on his part. The learned Counsel has further pleaded that as the writ pet ition is not in a representative capacity, this Court would not even otherwise t ake note of the baseless allegations made therein. The impugned order being vali d and justified, no interference is called for, he urged. 7. Ms. Phukan is one with the submissions made on behalf of the res pondent No. 7. 8. I have extended my cautious consideration to the rival submissio ns and the pleadings on record. A perusal of the impugned order discloses the fo llowing:- (a) The notice for correction of the voters list proposed to be used in the election/Annual General Meeting was circulated by the adhoc committee in charge of the said process on 27/8/2009 and a hearing in connection therewith was held in the office of the Samity on 25/9/2009. (b) The statutory appellate authority on the basis of the proceedings of the meeting and the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and the Bye Laws did not record any specific finding accepting the following:- (i) Shareholders in the que were not allowed to cast their votes. (ii) Ballot paper No. 2395 and 2506 were not signed by the Returning Officer, which were found at the time of counting. (iii) I.D. No. 4003 and 4634 belonged to the same share holder who had cast vo te twice. (iv) Proxy votes were cast. (v) Fresh shareholders were shown as defaulters in the voter list. (vi) B class voters cast their votes. (c) Due to some utter negligence of the officials of the Society as well as of the department, a good number of human errors like double entry, casting of v otes by dead shareholders, showing living shareholders as dead in the voters lis t could be detected. The officer concerned was required to correct the same with in next 30 days with the intimation to it. (d) Though the Polling Agents of all the contestants were appointed, nobody raised objection during the entire period/process of election in the matter of i llegal voter list or anything else. (e) Complaints were lodged after the completion of the process and that too after declaration of the election process. 9. On the basis of the above findings, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam, concluded that the Annual General Meeting/Election of the Soc iety had been held in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Act, Rules and Byelaws. The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Morigaon, was dir ected to do the needful. 10. It is submitted at the Bar that meanwhile the approval to the sa id meeting had been accorded even before the instant writ petition was institute d. The elected body, as has been submitted before this Court, is in office and f unctional. 11. While the relevance and significance of correct and updated vote rs list for the purpose involved is a sine qua non for a valid election, deficie ncies therein per se may not under all circumstances vitiate the same. To hold o therwise would be essentially inferential. If in fact, an election is held on th e basis of an incorrect and faulty voters list, having regard to the event and t he detrimental consequence thereof, it is expected that the shareholders and oth er members thereof would be up in arms against the proceedings. Though the conte xtual facts disclose that such an objection had been raised before the election was held, a meeting for rectifying the errors was convened on 25/9/2009 and the necessary hearing was conducted in connection therewith. The observation of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam, that inspite of the Polling Agents of the contestants being present during the Election/AGM, nobody had raised any ob jection in connection therewith more particularly with reference to the voters’ list or anything else, in absence of any refutation is of considerable significa nce. The attention of this Court has not also been drawn to any mandate or provi sion of law vis-à-vis the Election/AGM of the kind governed by the Act, Rules an d the Bye Laws thereunder that any and every anomaly in the voters list per se w ould invalidate the proceedings thereof to render it non est. The attempted anal ogy of the order dated 30/11/2009 rendered by the same authority vis-à-vis the A GM/Election of the Bonagaon GPSS Ltd., having regard to the contextual facts is not convincing. The proceedings of that Election/AGM not only revealed gross ill egalities in the voters list it was proved there as well that the same had been used to the advantage of the beneficiaries to the prejudice of other contesting candidates. The facts as there do not obtain in the present case. 12. The assertion of the Respondent No. 7 that the petitioner himsel f had unsuccessfully contested for the post of Chairman of the Samity in the sai d Election is an assertion, which has remained uncontroverted as on date. The ma rgin by which he has lost as is indicated in the interim application submitted b y the respondent No. 7 is not minimal as well. The writ petition admittedly is n ot in a representative capacity by him on behalf of the shareholders of the Sami ty. Be that as it may, in absence of any visible proof of vitiation of the proce edings of the Election/AGM of the Samity held on 27/10/2009, this Court is disin clined in the backdrop of facts to sustain the challenge laid against the impugn ed order. 13. The petition lacks in merit and is thus dismissed. No costs.