JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. 1. This intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 15/6/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 3531/2016 of Respondent No.5 directing the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam (Respondent No.2) to dispose of her representation and not to approve the minutes of the Annual General Meeting/Election of the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. (‘Bank’, in short) with respect to both the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are these. Respondent No.5 - Smti Minoti Boro - was the elected Secretary of M/S Laopani Bowa Kota Samabai Samity Ltd. The said Society is a constituent member of Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Limited and by virtue of her position, she was entitled to participate in the Annual General Meeting and also to contest the election for membership of the Board of Directors of the Bank. The notice for Annual General Meeting/Election was issued on 09/05/2016. Respondent No.5 filed one representation on 21/05/2016 to Respondent No.2 questioning the eligibility of both the appellants, who are the representatives of Gelabil GPMB Samabai Samity Ltd. and Merapani Samabai Samity Ltd. But, pending disposal of the representation, the appellants contested the election and both of them were elected. The result of the election was notified on 27/5/2016. The plea of Respondent No.5 was that since the appellants did not attend last 5(five) Annual General Meetings of the Bank, they were ineligible to become its Directors by virtue of Section 40(2) of Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 2007 and, therefore, Respondent No.2 being the competent authority to approve the election under Section 45 of the Assam Co-operative societies Act, the election of both the appellants is not liable to be approved. The learned Counsel appearing for the Bank intimated the Court that the Board of Directors elected on 27/5/2016 has been functioning well and as such, the elected Board should not be disrupted due to the ineligibility of the appellants. 3. The learned Single Judge, while disposing the writ petition, observed the appellants as ineligible to contest the election and directed respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation filed by Respondent No.5 before approval of the election of the Societies of which the appellants are Members. However, Respondent No.2 was allowed to approve the other elected persons as per norms, so that the elected body can perform without disruption. However, Respondent No.2 was allowed to approve the other elected persons as per norms, so that the elected body can perform without disruption. But, in respect of the appellants, the participation in the Board of Directors was restricted subject to the decision of Respondent No.2. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we find that the appellants were not heard before passing of the impugned order. Although, it was submitted on behalf of Respondent No.5 that both the appellants were ineligible to take part in the election process as they did not attend the Annual General Meeting of the Bank on 5(five) occasions, there is no record to substantiate the same. No record was also produced by the Bank in this regard. When the question of ineligibility of the appellants was raised, it was incumbent upon the learned Single Judge to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellants to rebut the claim of Respondent No.5. In absence of any material to show that the appellants were ineligible to contest the election, the observation of the learned Single Judge holding them ‘ineligible’ prior to disposal of the representation of Respondent No.5 was not justified. We agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that such an observation holding both the appellants as ‘ineligible’ would not be fair and just, more so, when the representation of Respondent No.5 is still pending before Respondent No. 2. We are also apprised that Respondent No.2 has already approved the election vide order dated 17/05/2016 i.e. pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, where names of the appellants are also there. 5. Therefore, we direct Respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of Respondent No.5 with respect to the eligibility of the appellants. While doing so, Respondent No. 2 shall also provide adequate opportunity of hearing to both the appellants to substantiate their claim of eligibility to contest the election as well as to become Members of the Board of Directors of the Bank, in question. We make it clear that while disposing the representation, Respondent No. 2 shall not proceed with a pre-conceived mind that the appellants are ineligible as observed by the learned Single Judge. We make it clear that while disposing the representation, Respondent No. 2 shall not proceed with a pre-conceived mind that the appellants are ineligible as observed by the learned Single Judge. We also make it clear that participation of the appellants in the Board of Directors of the Bank shall be subject to outcome of the representation of the writ petitioner. 6. With the above directions, the writ appeal is allowed.