WP(C) 4695/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Sri PK Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri BJ Ghosh, lea rned Government Advocate, Assam and Sri Abedin, learned counsel for the Responde nt No.6. The Respondent No.6, it must be noticed, is the President of the Adhoc Committee of the Samabai Samity in question as constituted by the order dated 4. 9.2007, which has been impugned in the present writ petition. The Respondents 7 to 15 are the members of the said ad hoc body and hence their interest are suffi ciently represented by the Chairman i.e. the Respondent No.6 2. As agreed to by the learned counsels for the parties and as records in o riginal have been placed before the Court, final orders in the writ petition are being passed at the motion stage. 3. By order dated 29.08.2007 issued under Section 32(5) of the Assam Cooper ative Societies Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) an adhoc committe e was constituted by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for managing the aff airs of the Udali Samabai Samity. The aforesaid action was taken by the Registra r after dissolving the previous One-man Committee constituted under Section 32(4 ) of the Act. By the aforesaid order dated 29.08.2007 the newly constituted Adho c Body was required to hold the Annual General Meeting of the Cooperative Societ y ,including elections ,within a period of 60 days. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 04.09.2007 the body constituted by the order dated 29.08.2007 was di ssolved and in its place a new Adhoc Body headed by the Respondent No.6 as the C hairman and the Respondent Nos.5 to 15 as Members was constituted with an obliga tion to hold the Annual General Meeting including the elections within a period of 90 days. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2007 passed by the Registrar of Coope rative Societies re-constituting the Adhoc Body of the Samabai Samity in superse ssion of the order dated 29.08.2007, the petitioner, as the President of the Adh oc Committee of the Udali Samabai Samity constituted by the order dated 29.08.20 07 has filed the present writ petition. 5. The records placed before the Court, which have been duly inspected by t he learned counsels for the contesting parties, go to show that the Adhoc Body c onstituted by the first order dated 29.08.2007 was on the basis of the recommend ation of the Minister, Co-operation on a petition filed by one Faizul Haque sugg esting the dissolution of the then existing body, i.e., One-man Committee and f or constitution of a fresh Adhoc Body. The names of the Members of the Adhoc Bod y including the Chairman and Vice Chairman were indicated in the aforesaid repre sentation dated 27.08.2007. The composition of the Adhoc Body by the order dated 29.08.2007 is in tune with what was suggested in the representation dated 27.0 8.2007 as approved by the Minister. Thereafter, it appears that another represen tation was filed by some share-holders of the Samabai Samity stating that electi ons cannot be held on account of the flood situation and, therefore, an Adhoc Bo dy should be constituted to run and manage the affairs of the Society. The compo sition of the Adhoc Body was once again suggested in the said representation. Th e said representation was endorsed to the Minister, Co-operation by the Minister , Environment & Forests on 30.08.2007, whereafter the Minister, Co-operation by order dated 31.8.2007, recorded on the body of the representation, required the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to take necessary steps in accordance with th e prayer made in the representation in question. Pursuant thereto in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 31(3) of the Act, the Second Body consisting of the Respondent Nos.6 to 15 has been constituted by order dated 4.09.2007 pas sed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. 6. A contention has been raised by Sri PK Roy Chaudhury, learned counsel fo r the petitioner that the exercise of power under Section 31(3) of the Act by th e Registrar , in the facts of the present case, is wholly unjustified. The learn ed counsel for the petitioner has also argued that in the present case there is no acceptable basis for dissolution of the earlier Adhoc Body within 5(five) day s of its constitution. It is argued that though under Section 31(3) of the Act, the Registrar would be competent in law to pass an order replacing the existing members of the Society if such a course of action is required to be taken in th e interest of the Society, in the present case, the records produced by the lear ned Government Advocate do not indicate that the order dated 4.9.2007 was prompt ed by any such compelling reasons so as to justify the invocation of the power u nder Section 31(3) of the Act. 7. In reply, Sri Abedin, learned counsel for the Respondent No.6, which Res pondent sufficiently represents the interest of the other members of the Adhoc B ody constituted by order dated 04.09.2007, i.e., Respondent Nos.7 to 15, has con tended that immediately after the formation of the Adhoc Committee by order date d 29.8.2007, 5 members had resigned and the remaining members of the Committee could not have functioned as the said remaining members could not form the requi site quorum for holding any meeting of the Adhoc Body. According to Sri Abedin, it is in the aforesaid facts and in order to make the Society functional that t he Registrar of the Cooperative Societies had to dissolve the Adhoc Committee co nstituted by order dated 29.8.2007 and to issue the second order dated 04.09.200 7 constituting another adhoc Body of which the Respondent No.6 is the Chairman a nd the other Respondents are the members. Learned counsel, on the aforesaid basi s, has, therefore, argued that there is no infirmity with the action impugned in the present writ petition so as to warrant interference. 8. In a judgment of this Court in the case of SURUZ AHMED -VS- STATE OF ASS AM, reported in (1992) 1 GLR 69, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner , a view has been taken that the power under Section 32(5) and/or Section 31(3) of the Act vested in the Registrar to constitute an Adhoc Body is required to be exercised independently by the Registrar without being influenced or dictated b y any other authority. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench has taken n ote of the fact that that under Section 31(3) of the Act the supreme authority i s vested either in the Government or in the Registrar and further that if the Re gistrar is to exercise the power, it must be in his own independent wisdom and n ot at the dictate of the other statutory authority, i.e., the Government. The Di vision Bench, on due consideration of the provisions of the Act, has also taken note of the fact that there is no provision under the Act which confers any powe r in a Minister to issue any direction to the Registrar in the matter of cons titution or re-constitution of Managing Committee. 9. The above formulation of the law by the Division Bench in SURUZ AHMED (S upra) makes it abundantly clear that the reconstitution of the Managing Committ ee by order dated 4.2.2007 being, admittedly, at the dictate of the Minister of Environment and Minister, Cooperation, the said order will have no sanctity in l aw. The manner of exercise of the power of reconstitution by the Registrar by in voking Section 31(3) of the Act leaves the Court satisfied that while issuing th e order dated 04.09.2007 the Registrar has abdicated his independent power and j udgment vested by the statute and has acted solely at the dictate of another aut hority, i.e., the Minister, which authority has no recognition in law. The Court , therefore, would not hesitate to hold that the impugned order dated 04.09.2007 is nonest in law. It is accordingly set aside. 10. The next question that will arise on the facts noticed by the Court is w ith regard to the validity of the order dated 29.08.2007, though the said questi on has not been raised by the Respondents ,assuming that the same can be so rai sed. 11. The eventual decision that has to be rendered by a Court exercising juri sdiction in the domain of public law under Article 226 of the Constitution, in m y considered view, cannot always remain constricted to the strict parameters of the grievances that may be advanced by the contesting parties. Though, ordinari ly, the Court will not enter into questions that are not raised the same is not an inviolable principle. To hold so may my result in failure to perform the prim ary duty cast on the Writ Court i.e. to ensure that the administrative process conforms to law. Facts not specifically pleaded or issues not raised but are ot herwise revealed by the records placed before the Court must be taken due cogniz ance of, in appropriate case by the Court exercising jurisdiction in the domain of public law and such issues as may arise from such facts have to be answered b y the Court if so required in larger public interest. It is on account of the sa id view that the Court has deemed it appropriate to hold that in the present cas e the Court would be justified in embarking upon the next logical course of acti on, i.e., to decide on the validity of the order dated 29.08.2007. The order dat ed 29.08.2007 must necessarily be judged by the same standards that the Court ha s adopted while judging the legality of the order dated 04.09.2007. Viewed thus, what clearly transpires from the records is that the order dated 29.08.2007 was passed again at the instance of the Minister, Cooperation on the basis of the r epresentation filed by one Faizul Haque. The constitution of the Adhoc Body by o rder dated 29.8.2007, therefore, again is not based on an independent decision o f the Registrar but the said exercise has been made solely at the behest of a Mi nister, an authority that has no recognition under the provisions of the Act. 12. In view of the above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the or der dated 29.08.2007 must receive the same treatment at the hands of Court whose fundamental duty is to uphold public interest by ensuring due compliance of the law. Consequently, the order dated 29.08.2007 is also being interfered with and the matter is sent back to the Registrar for constitution of an Adhoc Committee by exercising his own independent judgment in the matter, as mandated by the la w in force. 13. Writ Petition, consequently, is disposed of in terms of the above.