WA 198/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL B.K. Sharma, J This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 19.5.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5768/2009. By the said judgement , the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 7 has been allowed. The challeng e in the writ petition was the order dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure-4) by which the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam allowed the appeal preferred by the pr esent appellant, who was the respondent in the writ petition. The appeal was pre ferred under Section 80(3) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act challenging th e election to the post of Chairman, which was held in the Annual General Meeting on 28.8.2009. Be it stated here that the respondent No.7 was elected as the Cha irman of the Cooperative Society in question and his such election was also appr oved by the competent authority. We have heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A.K. Bhattacherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. We have also heard Mr. T.S. Deka, learned State Counsel. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Sing le Judge was wrong in appreciating the fact, inasmuch as, it is on record that i neligible voters were allowed to cast votes in the election. According to him, t his aspect of the matter having been mentioned in the impugned judgement and ord er, the learned Single Judge could not have set at naught the impugned appellate order and thereby upheld the election of the respondent No. 7 as the Chairman o f the Cooperative Society. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Bhattacherjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 submits that the appellant having participated in the elec tion process without raising any objection whatsoever, could not have later on t urned around so as to question the very election in which he had participated. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also considered the entire materials on record. As has bee n recorded in the impugned judgement and order, the present appellant who had co ntested the election for the post of Chairman did not raise any objection questi oning any anomaly in the voter list. In fact, he had submitted two letters, one dated 18.8.09 and other dated 28.8.09, accepting the correctness of the voter li st. During the proceeding, the appellant also could not demonstrate that the par ticular category of voters classified as ’D’ class members having been allowed t o cast their votes, materially affected the election results. It has rightly been observed by the learned Single Judge that the electi on to an office, which is a democratic process, cannot be interfered with lightl y. Whenever any election is challenged, the burden lies on the person challengin g such election to prove that the election was vitiated because of the infractio n of law or any other reason. In the instant case, the allegation all throughout participated in the e lection process without raising any objection and it is only after the declarati on of the results and when he found that he got defeated in the election, starte d questioning the very validity of the voter list. To overcome any doubt, we hav e perused the appellate order passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies o n which Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant has placed much emphasis. On perusal of the said order dated 14.12.2009, we do not find any material to sugge st that there was any specific materials placed on record so as to opine that ’D ’ class members allegedly ineligible to cast their votes, had been allowed to pa rticipate in the election and the same materially affected the election. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to admit the appea l and consequently, the appeal is dismissed.