WA 92/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR J CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI Aggrieved by a common judgment dated 13-3-09 in WP(C) Nos.2470/08 and 2490/08 th e petitioner in WP(C) No.2470/08 [who was also the respondent in WP(C) No.2490/0 8] has preferred the present appeal. The appellant herein challenged the election of a Managing Committee of a Cooperative Society wherei n the petitioner in WP(C) No.2490/08 was elected to the office of the Chairman o f the above referred cooperative society u/s 32 of the Assam Cooperative Societi es Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The result of such an election is requir ed to be approved by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies in view of the provision under Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the above mentioned Act. Therefore, the writ petition in WP(C) No.2490/09 was filed seeking a mandamus to the Registrar to confer such an approval for the election. The grievance of the appellant is that the election referred to above wa s conducted on the basis of a defective voters list on the ground that some pers ons who were not eligible to be included in the voters list have been included i n the voters list. Therefore, according to the appellant the election is invalid election and consequentially the Registrar could not be compelled to accord app roval for the election. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal recorded a finding that no person has come forward to challenge the election on the ground that his name is not included in the voters list . It is also recorded by the learned Judge t hat subsequent to the election an appeal was preferred to the Registrar of Coope rative Societies by some persons which resulted in an enquiry by the Registrar a nd the Registrar recorded a finding that there was some irregularities in prepar ation of the voters list. The finding of the learned Judge in this regard is as follows :- After the election was over, few persons submitted an appeal to the Registrar o f Cooperative Societies alleging malpractices on the ground that votes were cast in the names of dead persons. To ascertain the aforesaid allegations, an enquir y was held by an Inspector of the Societies, wherein it has been observed that t here were certain irregularities in preparation of the voters list. However, the Enquiry Officer has not given any exact figure as to how many bogues votes were included in the voters list, nor is there any finding that the number of bogues votes exceeded the difference of votes polled between returned candidates and d efeated candidates. Be that as it may, the alleged anomaly in the voters list ca nnot be said to be a malpractice at the instance of the elected members. It also appears from the documents annexed to the writ petitions and the affidavits tha t before holding the election notices were duly issued inviting objections regar ding preparation of voters list etc. Hence, I do not find any justifiable ground to withhold the approval of the Managing Committee. The findings recorded by the learned Judge extracted above are not in di spute in the present appeal. Therefore, the admitted factual position is that th ough there is a finding of irregularity in preparing the voters list what exactl y is the nature of the irregularity is not very clear. The allegations is that s ome dead person’s names were included in the voters list. Whether it is a fact o r not is a matter to be ascertained on an appropriate enquiry into the matter on evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in the appe al preferred to the Registrar it is also alleged by the appellant herein that ap art from the names of different persons figuring in the voters list names of som e persons who are ineligible to be voters also figures in the voters list. The c orrectness or otherwise of the allegations depends upon ascertainment of fact wh ich necessarily requires evidence to be examined. This court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution does not normally embark upon suc h an enquiry into the questions of fact. Apart from that the mere irregularity in the preparation of the voters l ist, in our opinion, does not per se result in invalidation of the election. No statutory provision is brought to out notice to establish that the mere irregula rity in preparation of the voters list would invalidate the result of the electi on. On the other hand logically only such irregularities which materially alter the result of the election, in our view, would vitiate the election. Whether the irregularities as such have materially altered the result of the election once upon depends on various facts to be determined upon evidence. Looked from any angle, we do not see any reason to interfere with the co nclusion reached by the learned Judge in dismissing the WP(C) No.2490/08 or the conclusion of the learned Judge directing the Registrar to grant necessary appr oval for the election in dispute. In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. It is open for the appellant to seek such remedies as may be available to him for a djudication of the above mentioned disputed questions of fact. The Misc Case No.861/09 also stands dismissed.