WP(C) 4475/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B D AGARWAL Heard Smt D Borgohain, learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Sri B J Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Sri I Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioners herein, are challenging the constitution and ele ction of the Managing Committee of Paschim Chenga Samabai Samiti Limited. The sa id election was held on 29.05.2010. 3. Against the aforesaid election, an appeal was also preferred bef ore the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, but the said appeal was dism issed on 08.07.2010. In this way, the writ petition is practically against the s aid order. 4. Smt Borgohain, learned counsel has submitted that the elections were held with defective voters’ list, inasmuch, as, the names of the petitioner s were intentionally left out from the voters’ list. According to the learned co unsel, the petitioner No. 1 was a member of the Society in the year 1994 and des pite that his name was not included in the voters’ list, prepared just before th e elections held in the month of May 2010. The election and constitution of the Executive Committee is also challenged on the ground that various decisions take n by the Committee were not approved by the Office of the Registrar of Co-operat ive Societies. 5. On the other hand, Sri Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Gover nment Advocate submitted that after a long time the election has been held and t he Executive Committee has been constituted by following a democratic process. A ccording to the learned counsel, wide publicity was given in the locality inviti ng applications and objections for inclusion of their names in the Voters’ List. In support of these submissions, 2 (two) numbers of notices issued on 02.12.201 0 and 20.03.2011, were produced. These notices were issued on the basis of resol utions taken by the Executive Committee. 6. With regard to obtaining of approval of resolutions from the Reg istrar the learned Government Advocate submitted that under Rule 26 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Rules, 1953, only the resolution by the General Assembly need to be approved by the Registrar. 7. Be that as it may, the powers of the High Court under Article 22 6 of the Constitution of India are very limited to interfere against an order of the appellate authority. In the case before me, the appellate authority’s order is a reasoned one and the said order was passed after taking into account the v ersion of the Returning Officer as well. Besides this, this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact. In other words, one of the petitioners is claim ing that he had taken loan from the Society, to assert his share in the society. However, the respondents are disputing this fact. Be that as it may, taking loa n in the year 1994 cannot necessarily be a conclusive evidence to hold the membe rship of all the petitioners in the society nor this fact is sufficient to decla re the election as non-est. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not persuaded to pass any order in this writ proceeding. In the result, the w rit petition stands dismissed.