JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Both the writ petitions being inter-connected have been heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. Facts involved in WP(C) No. 3147/2010 2. In this writ petition the Petitioner is aggrieved by his removal from the Chairmanship of Assam State Cooperative Union by the impugned order dated 29.5.2010 (Annexure-H). The Assam State Cooperative Union ('the Union') which is a State Cooperative Union is primarily concerned with the promotion and development of the cooperation movement in the State of Assam. The said Union is managed and run by the managing committee. On expiry of the term of the earlier managing committee on 26.6.2009, the Petitioner was elected as the chairman in the annual general meeting ('AGM'), election. The proceeding of the AGM in which the election was also held electing the Petitioner as the chairman was approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam vide Annexure-B letter dated 1.7.2009. 3. Being aggrieved by the proceedings of the election and the results thereof, some of the members of the Society/Union made a petition dated 21.7.2009 to the Registrar for review of the approval contained in the aforesaid Annexure-B letter dated 1.7.2009. The petition was rejected by order dated 22.9.2009 against which an appeal under Section 80 of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949 was preferred to the Government of Assam in the Cooperation Department. 4. The aforesaid appeal having not been decided for a considerable period of time, the aggrieved persons invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ petition registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 1885/2010. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 19.3.2010 with a direction to dispose of the appeal within 45 days. Pursuant to such direction, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Cooperation Department by his order dated 12.4.2010 directed the parties including the present Petitioner to appear before the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Cooperation Department on 20.4.2010 for hearing of the 5. When the instant writ petition was filed, the appeal was not disposed of, but in the meantime the Secretary, Cooperation Department issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner under Section 39(B)(B)(1) of the Act asking the Petitioner to submit his written statement of defence. By the said show cause notice, four charges were levelled against the Petitioner. When the instant writ petition was filed, the appeal was not disposed of, but in the meantime the Secretary, Cooperation Department issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner under Section 39(B)(B)(1) of the Act asking the Petitioner to submit his written statement of defence. By the said show cause notice, four charges were levelled against the Petitioner. For a ready reference the show cause notice dated 11.3.2010 is reproduced below: Show cause notice You are hereby required to show cause under Section 39B(1) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949, as to why you shall not be removed from the chairmanship of the Assam Cooperative Union on the following charge based on Report submitted by Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam and enquiry report submitted by Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Charge No. 1: That during your tenure as Chairman, the Assam State Cooperative Union had received a total Rs. 14,76,025 (Rupees fourteen lakh seventy-six thousand twenty-five) only from the National Coopeative Union of India towards re-imbursement of 50% of expenditure borne by ASCU for organizing various training programmes by cooperatives training centres, under the Central Sector Scheme for Cooperative Education and training of Government of India. Out of this amount received from NCUI only Rs. 2,41,000 has been recorded in cash book as "received". The rest amount Rs. 12,34,825 has not been recorded in same cash book. The Case Book in which the fund received from NCUI is recorded cannot be termed as Sub Cash book. Maintenance of three cash Books, one main and two sub Cash Books have been found to be irregular. This receipt from NCUI has not been reflected in the report of the internal auditor as placed in the general meeting. Besides, disbursement to District cooperative Unions were made in cash instead of cheque, draft in breach of financial discipline. Charge No. 2: As per report, the Training Programmes were conducted in violation of the terms and conditions of the Sanction order. As per sanction order, the programmes are to be carried out through ACTI, but due to lack of infrastructure the training was conducted through District Union on behalf of ACTI. On test scrutiny by the enquiry officer, it is found that the Guwahati District cooperative Union and Nagaon cooperative union, maintenance of programme wise separate accounts have not been found to be marinated. On test scrutiny by the enquiry officer, it is found that the Guwahati District cooperative Union and Nagaon cooperative union, maintenance of programme wise separate accounts have not been found to be marinated. Therefore, the total expenditure made on the programme could not be authentic. All disbursements are made in cash. The highest recipients of sums are Guwahati and Nagaon District Coop. Union. But the cash book of these two District Unions do not reveal to have received the amount. There is no records in the Guwahati and Nagaon District Cooperative Union to show that training programmes were conducted. The expenditure on teaching materials/aids and critical repairs, renovation have not been recorded in the cash book and purchases were made without following any rules. The expenditure are not certified by the CEO. Charge No. 3: The enquiry report shown that there is no records as to how much amount were raised as corpus fund. The receipt books have not been returned leaving scope for further collection of amounts. Charge No. 4: The report shown that ASCU has not maintained any record regarding holding of AGM by the District Unions. The enquiry reveals that District Unions have not convened AGM since long which means allocation taken by these unions after expiry of tenure of last elected committee are irregular. You are hereby asked to submit your written statement in defence within 10(ten) days from the date of receipt of this communication failing which necessary action will be taken against you as deemed fit 6. On receipt of the said show cause notice, the Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence dated 6.4.2010 (Annexure E) which is also reproduced below: To Dated 6.4.2010 The Secretary of the Government of Assam Co-operative Department Dispur, Guwahati (Assam) Sub: Submission of written statement of defence against the show cause notice Sir, In response to your subject and reference letter cited above, I would like to laid a few points regarding the matter above and to submit the answer of show cause notice for your perusal and necessary action. That, Sir as a president of ASCU I have not received any letter from the concerning authority during the period of enquiry. Without involving me in the enquiry process I have got the show cause notice from your end. That, Sir as a president of ASCU I have not received any letter from the concerning authority during the period of enquiry. Without involving me in the enquiry process I have got the show cause notice from your end. As per bye laws of the Assam State Cooperation Union the management committee and president of ASCU has got some duties and responsibilities under Section 14(a) bye laws of ASCU. The management committee is the policy makers only. So, far my knowledge is concerned the following parawise comment on the show cause notice forward for your perusal and necessary action. Answer to the show cause charge No. 1 During the tenure of my presidentship, the state Cooperative Union had received a total amount of Rs. 14,76,025 up to 31st March, 2009 as per Bank pass book of the A/c maintain for the purpose. Out of this amount an amount of Rs. 2,41,000 has been recorded in the main cash book of ASCU at the initial stage (Received before 31st March, 2008). The amount paid as reimbursement against the training programme conducted at Sibsagar, Morigaon, Dibrugarh, Nalbari, Guwahati to meet up the expenditure of various training programme hold as said places and collected proper receipt and vouchers against each camp. At the initial stage we have not got the details guideline of the NCUI and the rest amount Rs. 12,34,825 received after 31st March, 2008, has been recorded in a separate cash book as per guideline collected from NCUI (Guideline enclosed page No. 8 (XXIV) Annex-II). It can be mentioned here that it was also reflected in the Balance Sheet and cash amounts of the main Cash Book. That Sir, the Central Sector Training Programme under NCUI started from the 1st year of the 10th plan and due to lack of infrastructure facility of ACTI, Assam was deprive the said training during the said plan. After holding the chair of president of ASCU, myself including my officer invited to a regional conference of NCUI hold at Arunachal Pradesh by November 2008, where the president of NCUI suggested us to conduct training programmes particularly in Assam under the principal ship of ACTI Joysagar (Assam). After returning from the conference I was holding a DCEDO's meeting and to give the responsibilities to conduct training as per as possible. After returning from the conference I was holding a DCEDO's meeting and to give the responsibilities to conduct training as per as possible. According a resolution was adopted by the (Resolution enclosed Annexure-III) The amount received from NCUI during the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 audited (as per guideline) by a Chartered Accountant and audited utilization on certificate sent NCUI for their information and necessary action. Till date no audit objection raised on ASCU/ACTI, for which they have approved the running financial years calendar of proposed programme. The receipt of NCUI has not been reflected in the report of the internal auditor as placed in the General meeting due to maintenance of separate A/c. as per guideline and sectioning letter received from NCUI. The training programme conduct under Central Sector Training was reflected in the secretarial report disclosed in the same AGM - (Secretarial report enclosed in the Annexure-V) (Annexure-VI and VII enclosed) Due to some technical difficulties the fund disbursement made by cash not in Draft/Cheque, i.e., we have to incur expenditure against grants received from NCUI under Central Section Scheme of Cooperative education and training in the following head (1) Study material (2) Stationery (3) Payment of guest faculty (4) Payment of Training (TA& DA) (5) Boarding expenses on trainees (6) Lodging Expenses (7) Hired Vehicle (Field training) (8) Traveling Exp. of faculty (9) Hiring charges on training aids (Computer class room etc.) (10) Other institutional expenses That is why it is not possible to incur expenditure by cheque, draft. In this regards page No. 21 of the Guideline is enclosed herewith. Answer to the show cause charge No. 2 The training programme were conducted peripatetically under principal ship of ACTI Joysagar. The fund release for the purpose distributed as "cash disbursement" against the proper receipt and voucher due to lack of infrastructure and shortage of staff ACTI, Joysagar. On behalf of ACTI the ASCU has maintain a separate A/c. and separate cash book and audited the A/c. as per suggestion of NCUL All the District Co-operative Union would not be able to come forward for conduct central sector training programme due to pro-expenditure incurable in the programme as per Guideline (Annexure-II - Section (VI)). On behalf of ACTI the ASCU has maintain a separate A/c. and separate cash book and audited the A/c. as per suggestion of NCUL All the District Co-operative Union would not be able to come forward for conduct central sector training programme due to pro-expenditure incurable in the programme as per Guideline (Annexure-II - Section (VI)). Programme wise separate A/c. not only maintained by Guwahati and Nagaon DCU the entire amount released from ASCU, disbursed as cash against the each training programme hold at different venue after receiving proper receipt and voucher for future record and Audit by ASCU all the records maintain in our office separately on behalf of ACTI. So the DC Us not maintain the separate records, the enquiry officer probably not enquired the matter at ASCU. Due to ignorance of the DC Us they have not retain photocopy of the receipt and vouchers of central sector training programme in future the matter will be taken seriously. The expenditure incurred for teaching aids, critical repairs, renovation have been recorded in the same separate cash book (as mentioned earlier) and purchases were made following rules. Due to shifting of our office and paucity of place some records have been misplaced. Answer to the show cause charge No. 3 An amount of Rs. 1(one) lakh received against corpus fund have been already sent to NCUI and all the receipt books are available in the office records. But a few receipt books yet to receivable from the recipients for which notice issue/asked to recipients for early submission. The deposited amount at NCUI published in the NCU Is mouth piece, (enclosed page no in the Annexure-VIII). Answer to the show cause charge No. 4 The ASCU maintain the records of adopted particular resolution from every DCU (as mentioned in the notice of AGM) approved by the concerning AR Cs of concerning district which is required for represent the AGM of ASCU hold on 26.6.2009. (The notice of AGM and some approved resolution appended for your convenience at Annexure-IX). The District Co-operative Union are registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 and they have got their own independent bye laws. The responsibilities of Audit inspection supervision vested in the ARCS of the concerning districts. The State Co-operative Union has no rights to inspect audit holding of AGM, etc., except supervision of training education, publicity and propagandas works. The District Co-operative Union are registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 and they have got their own independent bye laws. The responsibilities of Audit inspection supervision vested in the ARCS of the concerning districts. The State Co-operative Union has no rights to inspect audit holding of AGM, etc., except supervision of training education, publicity and propagandas works. The District Co-operative Union has got affiliation from Assam State Co-operative Union as per national policy adopted. Respondent Sir, so far may knowledge is concerned, I offer my duties and responsibilities for development of Co-operative movement as a whole and I would like to request you if anything wrong unknowingly seeks you kind co-operation and coordination and the under signed may not be removed from the chairmanship of the Assam State Cooperative Union. Thanking you, Yours cooperatively Sd/- (Shri Kiran Kakati) President Assam State Co-operative Union Guwahati. 7. According to the Petitioner he had submitted an additional reply to the show cause notice vide his Annexure-G letter dated 29.5.2010 which is also reproduced below: To, The Secretary Department of Co-operation Government of Assam, Dispur Date: 29.5.2010 Sub: Additional reply to the show cause notice dated 11.3.2010 under No. COOP. 74/97/261 Ref: (1) My reply dated 6.4.2010 and (2) order dated 23.9.2009 issued by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Sir, With due respect and in addition to and without prejudice to the sand already taken by the undersigned, following contentions are raised for your kind consideration. That Sir, in the above show cause notice, while contemplating exercise of powers conferred under Section 39B(1) of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, it has been specifically mentioned that the charges were framed on the basis of reports submitted by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam as well as on an enquiry report submitted by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. However, till date no copy of such reports has been furnished to the undersigned, as a result of which the undersigned has been placed in a comparatively disadvantageous position. As such, it is respectfully prayed that the undersigned may be furnished with copies of such reports so as to adequately defend the charges levelled in the show cause notice, else same would result in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. As such, it is respectfully prayed that the undersigned may be furnished with copies of such reports so as to adequately defend the charges levelled in the show cause notice, else same would result in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. That Sir, in connection with the same incidents, the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies vide letter under reference has already held that the records of the society goes to show that there is no defalcation of any fund received by the society. Moreover the undersigned has reliably come to learn that the Registrar and the Joint Registrar has already deposed before you good self and has submitted in favour of the undersigned. As such, the statement deposed by the Registrar as well as any officer of his department may also be provided to the undersigned as to submit effective reply to the charges. That without admitting but assuming that some instance of irregularities have been found in the functioning of the society, same being a collective activity, decision, any responsibility cannot be fixed upon the undersigned. In view of the above, your good self is requested to look into the above aspect of the matter, including furnishing of reports submitted by the Registrar and Joint Registrar before any final decision is taken upon the above show cause notice. 8. After the aforesaid process, the impugned Annexure-H order dated 29.5.2010 was passed removing the Petitioner as Chairman under Section 39B(1) of the Act and the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Assam was directed to take over the whole charge of the chairman of the Cooperative Union till election of a new chairman. The impugned order dated 29.5.2010 is also quoted below: GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR No. Coop 74/97/308 Dated Dispur, the 29th May, 2010 WHEREAS various allegations including serious financial irregularities were received against the Assam State Cooperative Union, headed by Shri Kiran Kakati. The impugned order dated 29.5.2010 is also quoted below: GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR No. Coop 74/97/308 Dated Dispur, the 29th May, 2010 WHEREAS various allegations including serious financial irregularities were received against the Assam State Cooperative Union, headed by Shri Kiran Kakati. The Government of Assam, Cooperation Department ordered to Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam to conduct a through enquiry into these allegations, and WHEREAS the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam had submitted a report (Vide No. CMP 7/2006/244, dated 6th February, 2010) alongwith an enquiry report, conducted by a senior officer, i.e., Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (H.O.) and WHEREAS the enquiry reports pointed out and held serious irregularities including financial irregularities/misuse of grant from NCUI to the extent of Rs. 12,34,825 for which the President of Assam State Cooperative Union is mostly responsible and, therefore, notice under Section 39B of the Assam Coop. Societies, 1949 was issued to Shri Kiran Kakati, Chairman, Assam State Cooperative Union to show cause as to why he shall not be removed from the chairmanship of Assam State Cooperative Union on specific charges (vide No. Coop. 74/97/261 dated 1.3.2010) and WHEREAS reply submitted to the show cause notice by Sri Kiran Kakati, Chairman, Assam State Cooperative Union is not at all satisfactory the State Government is inclined to hold that continuance of Shri Kiran Kakati as Chairman of Assam State Cooperative Union shall be against the interest of Cooperative Movement of the State and, therefore. The Governor of Assam is in the interest of Cooperative movement of the state and in the interest of public service pleased to order that Shri Kiran Kakati, Chairman, Assam State Cooperative Union be removed from Chairmanship under Section 39B(1) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949. The Governor of Assam is further pleased to order under Section 31(3) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949 that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam shall takeover and hold charge of Chairman, Assam State Cooperative Union till a new Chairman is elected. Sd/- Secretary to the Government of Assam Cooperation Department. Facts involved in WP(C) No. 3588/2010 9. In this writ petition-the challenge is Annexure-O order dated 9.6.2010 by which managing committee of the Cooperation Union itself has been dissolved on the ground of the AGM/election earlier held being illegal. Sd/- Secretary to the Government of Assam Cooperation Department. Facts involved in WP(C) No. 3588/2010 9. In this writ petition-the challenge is Annexure-O order dated 9.6.2010 by which managing committee of the Cooperation Union itself has been dissolved on the ground of the AGM/election earlier held being illegal. The order has been passed in the appeal preferred under Section 80(3) of the Act about which mention has been made above. As noted above, the appeal was preferred against the order dated 22.9.2009 by which the petition for review of the decision contained in letter dated 1.7.2009 conveying the approval to the AGM/election was challenged. The petition having been rejected by the aforesaid order dated 22.9.2009, the appeal was preferred. As the appeal was not disposed of, the aforementioned writ petition [WP(C) No. 1885/2010] was preferred in which the order was passed for disposal of the appeal within the stipulated period following which parties were directed to appear before the authority for hearing which they accordingly did. On conclusion of the hearing, the authority passed the impugned order dated 9.6.2009 dissolving the elected body. Stand of the Respondents 10. In both the writ petitions the Respondents both official and private, have filed their counter affidavits to which the Petitioners have also filed their reply affidavits. The stand of the Respondents, in a nutshell is that the impugned decisions have been taken on the basis of the materials available on records. It has been stated that the appeal was disposed of upon hearing both the parties. As regards the allegation of the Petitioner that the enquiry report which finds mention in the impugned appellate order dated 11.3.2010 was not furnished to the Petitioner and that he was also not associated in the proceedings of the said enquiry, the stand of the Respondents is that the show cause notice itself did mention about the contents of the enquiry reports making the Petitioner aware of the contents thereof and consequently the Petitioner had full knowledge of the same based on which he also submitted his written statement of defence. It has also been stated that the Petitioner on receipt of the show cause notice had prayed for extension of time till 5.4.2010 for submitting written statement and the same was allowed. It has also been stated that the Petitioner on receipt of the show cause notice had prayed for extension of time till 5.4.2010 for submitting written statement and the same was allowed. It has also been stated that as per the information furnished by the enquiry officer, prior intimation was given to the Petitioner and the enquiries made by him were also met with. 11. As regards the dissolution of the managing committee of the Union, it has been stated that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the materials on records and that there was no infirmity in the procedure adopted towards passing the said order. The Respondents in their affidavits have also annexed certain documents in support of the impugned orders. 12. I have heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners as well as Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Hazarika representing the private Respondents. I have also heard Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate and Ms. H.M. Phukan and Mr. E.K. Borah, learned State counsel appearing for the official Respondents. I have also gone through the entire records produced by the learned State counsel. WP(C) No. 3147/2010 Basic ground of challenge and findings 13. The basic grounds of challenge to the impugned order dated 29.5.2010 (Annexure-H) involving WP(C) No. 3147/2010 is that the Petitioner was not apprised of the reports which finds mentioned in the order, it is in this context, the Petitioner has referred to Annexure-G additional reply to the show cause notice dated 11.3.2010 in which the documents pertaining to the enquiries and the enquiry reports was requested to be furnished. It will be pertinent to mention here that by the show cause notice dated 11.3.2010, the Petitioner was granted 10 days time to submit written statement of defence which the Petitioner submitted on 6.4.2010. As noted above, earlier he had prayed for time to file written statement. Extension of time was prayed till 5.4.2010 and the same was allowed. Thereafter he submitted the written statement on 6.4.2010 answering each and every charge in details. The written statement was furnished without any reservation regarding non-furnishing of any documents and/or the reports. It was after two months the Petitioner submitted the purported additional reply on 29.5.2010 asking for documents/reports mentioned therein without pointing out as to the relevance thereof. 14. Thereafter he submitted the written statement on 6.4.2010 answering each and every charge in details. The written statement was furnished without any reservation regarding non-furnishing of any documents and/or the reports. It was after two months the Petitioner submitted the purported additional reply on 29.5.2010 asking for documents/reports mentioned therein without pointing out as to the relevance thereof. 14. Apart from the fact that the proceedings under Section 39B(1) of the Act being not a proceeding like that of a departmental proceeding, it is the stand of the Respondents that the Petitioner was duly apprised of the enquiry. Further, the show cause notice itself dearly mentioned that the charges had been brought on the basis of the reports mentioned therein. The contents of the enquiry reports were also discussed in the show cause notice. The Petitioner at no point of time asked for the copies of the reports and as stated above, submitted his written statement of defence after initial extension of time till 6.4.2010 which has been quoted above. 15. The written statement dated 6.4.2010 will go to show that the Petitioner submitted the same in great details clearly understanding the charges levelled against him. In the said written statement there was no whisper regarding any prejudice due to non-furnishing of the enquiry reports. Thus, no prejudice was caused to the Petitioner. Even in the additional reply dated 29.5.2010 except asking for the copies of the enquiry reports, no prejudice was shown and also there was no explanation as to how the Petitioner could submit the detailed written statement without any reservation on 6.4.2010. It is in this context, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the purported additional reply after nearly two months and that too, without any leave of the authority, was an after thought being aware of the adverse situation and likelihood of the impugned order being passed with the sole purpose for making out of the case on technicalities. 16. Apart from the above, in the show cause notice itself the Petitioner was apprised of the charges against him in details and as to what was the revelation made in the enquiry. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of not-making the Petitioner aware of the enquiry reports in full appreciation of which he had submitted his written statement on 6.4.2010. 17. Mr. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of not-making the Petitioner aware of the enquiry reports in full appreciation of which he had submitted his written statement on 6.4.2010. 17. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also assailed the impugned order dated 29.5.2010 on the ground of being non speaking one. The impugned order clearly reflects the enquiry conducted against the Petitioner, show cause notice and the written statement submitted by the Petitioner. The impugned order dated 29.5.2010 is in agreement to the charges levelled against the Petitioner. There being reference to all the material particulars, it cannot be said that the impugned order is a non-speaking one. In this connection, observation of the Apex court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2043 is reproduced below: 8. In view of the contents of the impugned order, it is difficult to say that the punishing authority had not applied his mind to the case before terminating the service of the Appellant. The punishing authority has placed reliance upon the report of the Enquiry Officer which means that he has not only agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, but also has accepted the reasons given by him for the findings. In our opinion, when the punishing authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Office and accepts the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss evidence and come to the same findings as that of the Enquiry Officer and give the same reasons for the findings. We are unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the Appellant that the impugned order of termination is vitiated as it is a non-speaking order and does not contain any reason. When by the impugned order the punishing authority has accepted the findings by him, the question of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice does not arise. It is also incorrect to say that the impugned order is not a speaking order. Charges and reply 18. The written statement submitted by the Petitioner has been quoted above. As regards the charge No. 1 that the amount of Rs. 12,34,825 received from NCUI was not recorded in the cash book and Rs. It is also incorrect to say that the impugned order is not a speaking order. Charges and reply 18. The written statement submitted by the Petitioner has been quoted above. As regards the charge No. 1 that the amount of Rs. 12,34,825 received from NCUI was not recorded in the cash book and Rs. 2,41,000 had been recorded as "received", the Petitioner in his written statement gave an unsatisfactory reply that in absence of non-receipt of detail guidelines from NCUI, the said amount of Rs. 12,34,825 had been recorded in a separate cash book. As regards the charge No. 2, i.e., non-maintaining programme wise separate accounts and the total expenditure incurred and that the relevant cash book of the highest recipient of the accounts, i.e., Guwahati and Nagaon District Cooperative Unions, did not reflect the same, the Petitioner's answer was that programme wise separate accounts were not maintained District wise due to their ignorance and that they also did not retain the photo copies of the receipts and vouchers of the Central Sector Training Programme and that the matter would be looked into in future seriously. Another excuse shown in the written statement was that due to shirting of the office and paucity of place, some records had been misplaced. 19. As regards the charge No. 3 that the enquiry report showed that there was no records as to how many amounts were raised as corpus fund and that receipt books had also not been returned leaving scope for further collection of amounts, the reply of the Petitioner was that a few receipt books were yet to be received from the recipient for which notice had been issued for early submission. As regards the charge No. 4 that the Union did not maintain any record regarding holding of AGM by the District Unions and as has been revealed in the enquiry, the District Unions had not convened the AGM since long and, thus, the allocations taken by the said Unions after expiry of tenure of last elected Committee were irregular, the reply furnished by the Petitioner was that the responsibilities of the audit inspection was vested with the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies of the concerned Districts and that the Union has no right to inspect the audit regarding holding the AGM, etc. 20. 20. From the above stand of the Petitioner reflected in the written statement, it cannot be said to be a case of meeting the charges satisfactorily and consequently the Government in the Cooperation Department was justified in passing the impugned order dated 29.5.2010 and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly the challenge made in WP(C) No. 3147/2010 cannot sustain and consequently, same is dismissed. Even otherwise also in view of the eventual dissolution of the entire managing committee of the Union by the impugned order dated 9.6.2010 which is under challenge in the second writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 3588/2010, subject to the outcome of the said writ petition, this writ petition does not survive. However, I have dealt with the writ petition in details and in view of my finding recorded above, the impugned order dated 9.6.2010 (Annexure-O) is sustained. WP(C) No. 3588/201 Basic grounds of challenge and findings 21. The reasons assailed against Annexure O order dated 9.6.2010 by which the managing committee was dissolved have been spelt out in paragraphs-16 of WP(C) No. 3588/2010 which are reproduced below: 16. That the present writ petition is directed against the aforesaid order dated 9.6.2010 and such challenge is primarily based on three grounds. Firstly, such an order clearly reflects the mala fide, bias attitude of the Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioners as well as other elected members of the Executive Committee of the Union, which has been resorted to in connivance with the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 for certain extraneous considerations. Secondly, such order is grossly violative of the provisions of the Act of 1949, more particularly. Section80(3) of the Act, which clearly provides that the exercise of power of appeal should be strictly exercised for adjudication of questions of law. However, in the instant case issues pertaining to pure questions of fact were framed and adjudicated upon by the Respondent No. 1, which amounts to exceeding jurisdiction and as such non est in the eyes of law. Thirdly, the finding of fact, though not permissible are clearly concocted, unfounded and perverse. 22. In support of the aforesaid grounds, the Petitioners have stated in the writ petition that the Respondent Nos. Thirdly, the finding of fact, though not permissible are clearly concocted, unfounded and perverse. 22. In support of the aforesaid grounds, the Petitioners have stated in the writ petition that the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as well as some of their aids had been constantly endevouring to oust the elected body for their own vested interest in furtherance of which they had initially filed the petition for review of the order of approval accorded to the AGM/election and thereafter preferred the appeal under Section 80(3) of the Act which according to the Petitioners is based on pure questions of fact and not law, only on which ground such appeal is maintainable. In this connection, the Petitioners have also referred to the impugned order in WP(C) No. 3147/2010 which according to the Petitioners was at the behest of the private Respondents. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Cooperation Department, while passing the impugned order solely relied upon the story made out by the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 and acted in a most mala fide manner in connivance with the said two Respondents. It has further been stated by the Petitioners that the impugned order is based on perverse finding on the basis of the concocted and unfounded facts. In this connection, the Petitioners have referred to the fats pleaded in paragraph-19 of the writ petition so as to contend that AGM/election was properly held and that the findings recorded in the impugned order is based on incorrect information provided by the ARCS. In a nutshell, what has been contended is that there was no irregularity in conducting the AGM/election. 23. As against the aforesaid plea of the Petitioners, the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in their counter affidavit have contended, inter alia as follows: (i) Though the notice was dated 10.6.2009 notifying holding of the AGM on 26.6.2009, the same appeared to be anti dated. Moreover, the said notice was required to be served under certificate of posting, but no notice was served under certificate of posting. (ii) Though as per the amended bye-law. Moreover, the said notice was required to be served under certificate of posting, but no notice was served under certificate of posting. (ii) Though as per the amended bye-law. District Cooperative Unions having membership of 40 and above are entitled to depute 4 representatives to participate in the AGM and those District Cooperative Unions having less than 40 members are entitled to send 2 representatives to the AGM, all the District Cooperative Unions were asked to send 4 representatives to attend the said AGM. Such representatives participated in the AGM/Election. (iii) A number of District Cooperative Unions either did not old their AGM or the proceedings of the AG Ms held were not approved by the concerned Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Following applicants submitted by various persons under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, it could be ascertained in August, 2009 that the proceedings of the AGM of the Guwahati District Cooperative Union held on 2.6.2006 was not approved. Thereafter, AG Ms for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were not held. The Nagaon District Cooperative Union did not hold AG Ms for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Similar is the case of the Barpeta District Cooperative Union and the Sadiya District Cooperative Union. 24. In the above context, the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in their affidavit have placed reliance on Anenxures-I, II, III and IV letters dated 10.8.2009, 17.8.2009, 18.8.2009 and 19.8.2009 issued by the respective ARCS furnishing intimation that AGM/election in respect of Guwahati, Sadiya, Nagaon and Barpeta Districts Cooperative Unions were not held for several years. In this connection, the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Cooperation Department in his affidavit dated 3.8.2010 has also stated that as per amended bye-laws under Section 13(3) of the Act, the District Union having less than 40 members can send two members and those who are having above 40 members can send four members as representative members for the General Assembly. However, Sadiya District Cooperative Union sent members beyond the permissible limit and moreover, their membership was also not valid since no AGM was held for the last three years, i.e., 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. As per Section 11(2), representatives of the election should be affiliated to the Union. 25. However, Sadiya District Cooperative Union sent members beyond the permissible limit and moreover, their membership was also not valid since no AGM was held for the last three years, i.e., 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. As per Section 11(2), representatives of the election should be affiliated to the Union. 25. The impugned order dated 9.6.2010 has been passed dissolving the managing committee of the Union pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 8.6.2010 in WP(C) No. 3147/2010. By the said order, direction was issued for disposal of the appeal. The appeal was preferred on 7.10.2009 urging various grounds towards assailing the AGM/election and the approval accorded to the same by letter dated 1.7.2009 (Annexure-C). Due notice was given to the parties including the Petitioners and the private Respondents as will be evident from Annexure-G notice dated 12.4.2010. In response to the said notice, the parties appeared before the appellate authority by submitting their written attendance. The Petitioners also submitted their para wise reply to the appeal (Annexure-H). It was only thereafter, the appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 9.6.2010. 26. In the affidavit in opposition filed by the Respondent No. 1 on 6.8.2010, relevant documents pertaining to hearing of the appeal have been annexed which will go to show that both the parties apart from submitting their written attendance also submitted written statements. In the proceeding towards disposal of the appeal due procedure was followed which is evident from the records produced by the learned State counsel. 27. After observing the formalities and hearing the parties involved, the Government in the Cooperation Department passed the impugned order dated 9.6.2010 recording its findings therein. As recorded in the order, the main points urged in the appeal preferred under Section 80(3) of the Act are as follows: (i) That notice for holding the AGM dated 26.6.2009 was not served "under Certificate of Posting". (ii) All District Cooperative Unions were asked to send 4 representative to the AGM of ASCU. As per amended by law of ASCU, the District Coop. Unions having 40 and above members are eligible to send 4 representative and those having less than 40 members are eligible to send only two representatives. As asked for by ASCU in the notice some district Cooperative Unions having less than 40 members send 4 representatives. As per amended by law of ASCU, the District Coop. Unions having 40 and above members are eligible to send 4 representative and those having less than 40 members are eligible to send only two representatives. As asked for by ASCU in the notice some district Cooperative Unions having less than 40 members send 4 representatives. (iii) That a number of District Cooperative Unions either did not hold their ASCU or the proceedings of the AG Ms held were not approved by convened ARCS but such District Cooperative Unions, i.e., Guwahati, Nagaon, Barpeta and Sadiya not hold their own AGM, had participated in the AGM of ASCU. Their participation to the AGM of ASCU clearly vitiated the proceedings and the election held on 26.9.2009. (iv) That the ASCU had received an amount of Rs. 15.30 lakh from NCUI but this amount was neither accounted for in cash book nor reflected in the audit report and, thus, committed financial irregularities. 28. While considering the appeal the appellate authority duly considered the materials on record and recorded the findings in detailed. The relevant portion of appellate authority's order is quoted below: Sri Kiran Kakati, who represented Guwahati DCU as it President and was elected as President of ASCU (Now removed by Government vide order No. Coop. 74/97/308 dated 29.5.2010) denied that the number of participating members was mentioned in the notice of AGM. According to him it is the duty of the concerned ARCS to look into the eligibilities of DC Us to participate in the AGM/Election of ASCU, because the ARCVS accord "approval" to the DC Us for their participation to AGM of ASCU. In supporting of this allegation, Sri Pradip Goswami has submitted Copy of Notice issued by ASCU for holding AGM wherein it was stated clearly to send 4 representatives. He also submitted a list of 26 functioning Cooperative Societies of Sadiya Sub-Division under Sadiya DCU which sent 4 representatives to AGM of ASCU but entitled only 2 representatives. The participation of 4 representatives of Sadiya DCU to the AGM, Election of ASCU is against the amended bye-law of ASCU published under Notification CXE. 17/81/Pt./246 dated 11th September, 1991. In this regard it has also been found that Sri K. Kakati has submitted photocopy of approval concerned ARCS Guwahati, Nagaon and Sadiya allowing 4 representatives is not tenable in view of information given by respective ARCS under RTI Act. 17/81/Pt./246 dated 11th September, 1991. In this regard it has also been found that Sri K. Kakati has submitted photocopy of approval concerned ARCS Guwahati, Nagaon and Sadiya allowing 4 representatives is not tenable in view of information given by respective ARCS under RTI Act. Besides, Sri Kakati has not submitted copy of such approval in respect of other 20 DCU in support of his claim. The Sadiya DCU has only 26 Coop. Societies under it and as such the DCU are not entitled to send 4 representatives to the AGM of ASCU. (iii) That it has been alleged in appeal petition by Sri Pradip Goswami as quoted in para 2(iii) above that some District Union, i.e., Guwahati, Nagaon, Barpeta and Sadiya had either not hold their AGM or proceedings of AGM hold if any were not approved by the concerned ARCS. But these District unions had participated the AGM/Election of ASCU on 26.6.2009. On examination of records it has been found that Guwahati DCU hold their AGM has on 26.6.2006 but the proceedings of the Said AGM was not approved by the ARCS, Guwahati, Guwahati DCU was represented by Sri Kiran Kakati as its President. He participated the AGM/Election of ACU and got elected as President (now removed). No proceedings of AGM of Nagaon DCU for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 was submitted to the ARCS, Nagaon for approval, as per information given by ARCS, Nagaon vide No. CNE. 4/2006/165 dated 18.8.2009 under RTI Act, 2005. No AGM of Sadiya DCU was held during the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 as per information given by the ARCS, Sadiya vide letter No. DSC (g)28/2007/44 dated 7th August, 2009, under RTI Act. The District Cooperative Unions should hold their AGM each year and hold election as provided in their Bye-law (Clause 10 and 11 of the Bye-law of DC Us) (iv) The allegation quoted above, in para 3(iv) is pertaining to Financial irregularity and this has been enquired into separately and action taken separately. In view of the above, it is clear that allegations regarding breach of their own Bye-law by the ASCU and DCU, Guwahati, Nagaon, and Sadiya as made in the Appeal under Section 80(3)submitted by Sri Pradip Goswami have been substantiated/established. In view of the above, it is clear that allegations regarding breach of their own Bye-law by the ASCU and DCU, Guwahati, Nagaon, and Sadiya as made in the Appeal under Section 80(3)submitted by Sri Pradip Goswami have been substantiated/established. As the AGM/Election of ASCU was participated by DCU, Guwahati, Nagaon, Sadiya in clean violation Bye-law, their participation to the AGM/election of ASCU is against Bye laws and as such illegal. The appeal under Section 80(3) of Sri Pradip Goswami is admitted. Now, therefore, I, Dr. R. Zaman, IAS, Secretary to the Government of Assam, Cooperation Department, under Section 80(4) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949, as Appellate Authority Review the orders passed by the PCS, Assam vide No. CMP. 7/2006/pt./397 dated 2nd September, 2009 and admit the appeal filed by Sri Pradip Goswami under Section 80(3). The order dated 2.9.2010 passed by PCS, Assam vide No. CMP. 7/2006/Pt./397 is hereby set aside. It is found that the AGM/Election of the ASCU dated 26.6.2009 was participated by unqualified members of Guwahati, Nagaon and Sadiya DCU thereby leading to violation of Bye-law. The said AGM/Election is, therefore, illegal. 29. From the above what is seen is that the Petitioner could not submit approval letters in respect of 20 DC Us in support of their claim. Sadiya DCU was not entitled to send 4 representatives to the AGM/election. Further the other District Unions including Sadiya, i.e., Guwahati, Nagaon and Barpeta having not held their AG Ms were not entitled to participate in the AGM/election held on 26.6.2010. Guwahati DCU although held its AGM last on 26.6.2006, even the said proceeding was not approved by the ACRS, Guwahati. The Guwahati DCU was represented by Shri Kiron Kakoti, i.e., the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3147/2010, who was eventually elected as the chairman of the Union. No proceeding of AGM of Nagaon DCU for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 was submitted to the ARCS, Nagaon for approval. On the other hand, as per the requirement of law, the AGM of DC Us is required to be held every year. 30. Appellate authority in its impugned order has also recorded as to how the financial irregularity was committed by the chairman of the Union and for that matter the Union itself for which the chairman, i.e., the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3147/2010 was removed. 30. Appellate authority in its impugned order has also recorded as to how the financial irregularity was committed by the chairman of the Union and for that matter the Union itself for which the chairman, i.e., the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3147/2010 was removed. It is on the basis of such materials the appellate authority allowed the appeal under Section80(3) of the Act. 31. As regards the plea of the Petitioners that the appeal under Section 80(3) can be preferred only on the question of law and not on facts and that the whole basis of the appeal being based on disputed questions of fact, the appellate authority could not have entertained the appeal, suffice it to say that the question of law cannot be decided in isolation of the facts involved. The question of law necessarily will have to be on the basis of the facts pleaded and/or alleged. 32. In the instant case, based on facts, the appeal was preferred urging the substantial question of law. The plea of illegal participation of the representative of the District Cooperative Unions including the participation of the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3147/2010 in the AGM/election, being violative of the relevant law, can not be entertained under Section80(3) of the Act on the ground of being based on facts, if accepted, then in that case a situation will arise in which the actions/inactions contrary to the law and the rules holding the field, can never be put to challenge, although same may give rise to substantial question of law. The provision of Section 80(3) of the Act has been made to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart or injunct the aggrieved person, no matter, gravity of illegality/irregularity committed by the members of the Cooperative movement. If such plea is allowed, an appeal under Section 80(3) of the Act will always be avoided on the ground of being involved with disputed questions of fact. 33. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned appellate order dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure-O) requiring interference of this Court. Consequently the challenge put to the same fails and the writ petition is dismissed. 34. In view of the above, both the writ petitions, i.e., WP(C) No. 3147/2010 and WP(C) No. 3588/2010 are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed