JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, CJ. We have heard Mr. S. Banik, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Cooperation Department for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. We have also heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned Advocate for the respondent No.4. 2. By the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2024 passed in WP(C) No763/2023, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the appellant/Board gets dissolved for not complying with the provisions of Section 39 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as “Act of 2007”). As a sequel to this, the next election held on 17.04.2022 and approved on 25.04.2022 is also rendered non est in the eyes of law. 3. Short facts, which would be necessary for disposal of this case, are that the appellant/Board was constituted for the period 25.05.2017 to 25.05.2022. In accordance with the mandate of Section 39 of the Act of 2007, Annual General Meeting (AGM) was held, according to the Board, on 30.09.2021 with respect to budgetary approvals, etc., which was approved on 19.10.2021. However, the Secretary of the Board (respondent No.4) made a complaint before the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Karimganj that no AGM was held within a period of 6(six) months, as mandated under Section 39 of the Act of 2007 and, therefore, the Board gets automatically dissolved. However, this complaint preferred by the respondent No.4 before the Assistant Registrar, was not entertained. 4. The respondent No.4 thereafter appealed before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam alleging that, in fact, the AGM was held on 03.10.2021 but by tampering of the records, it was made to look like as if it was held on 30.09.2021. 5. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, on perusal of records and after hearing all the concerned, observed that the AGM was held on 22.09.2021 but the meeting was adjourned because of lack of quorum. The adjourned meeting was held on 30.09.2021 for which there was quorum. Subsequently, the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Karimganj approved the proceedings of the AGM. The adjourned meeting was held on 30.09.2021 for which there was quorum. Subsequently, the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Karimganj approved the proceedings of the AGM. With respect to the allegation of respondent No.4 that the date of the meeting was tampered with, the learned Registrar was of the view that it was the respondent No.4, who was in custody of the records of the proceedings of the Board and, therefore, if there was any manipulation or tampering, it was him and not any other functionary of the Board. With respect to the removal of the respondent No.4 as Secretary, no interference was made by the learned Registrar. 6. It would be relevant herein in this context to state that while all this was going on, elections were held and the present Board was constituted which was also confirmed later. 7. Not losing heart, the respondent No.4 preferred a review against the order passed by the Registrar and when the review was not being taken up, he rushed to this Court vide WP(C) No.5805/2022. 8. A Bench of this Court, vide order dated 05.09.2022, directed that the review filed by the respondent No.4 must be taken up for consideration and be disposed off by passing a speaking order. 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the review petition was heard and was disposed off by order dated 01.02.2023. 10. While reviewing the earlier order, the Reviewing Authority took note of the fact that the claim of the Board was that the AGM was held on 30.09.2021, which was in accord with the mandate of Section 39 of the Act of 2007. However, since there was a challenge to the correctness of the date mentioned in the proceedings, the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies was asked to ascertain as to who had submitted the proceedings of the AGM in the Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Somehow or the other, for reasons inexplicable and uncommented upon by the Reviewing Authority, the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies was not able to ascertain the afore-noted fact leading to the presumption by the Reviewing Authority that since the Chairman of the Board was the last person to sign the proceedings, any tampering or manipulation in the records would be presumed to have been done by him and not by any other. 11. 11. Thus, it was held that if the AGM was not held within 6(six) months of the formation of the Board, the approval of the AGM became redundant and the Board automatically got dissolved. It was further observed by the Reviewing Authority that the Board of the Society is required to be constituted afresh as per the mandate of Section 41(6) of the Act of 2007. 12. This was challenged by the Board before the learned Single Judge on several grounds, including that the logic employed by the Reviewing Authority for holding the Board responsible for manipulating the records, to be faulty and untenable. 13. However, it appears that the learned Single Judge directed his gaze to the question of admissibility of the review petition and the powers of the Reviewing Authority to modify or review the orders earlier passed by the same authority. While holding that such order could have been reviewed, especially under the orders of this Court, any question pertaining to the admissibility of the review would lead to questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, asking the Reviewing Authority to dispose of such review petition, without there being any challenge to such order. 14. After having concluded with this issue, the learned Single Judge went ahead and accepted the findings of the Reviewing Authority and held that the new Board ought to be constituted under the provisions contained in Section 41(6) of the Act of 2007. 15. While challenging the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the appellants/Board has submitted with great clarity that the Reviewing Authority ought not to have decided the matter in this fashion, without asking for any evidence to be adduced with respect to tampering. The rationale behind the reasoning of the Reviewing Authority was not acceptable, especially, when the Appellate Authority had categorically accepted the statement of the Board that after the AGM was adjourned on 22.09.2021 because of lack of quorum, it was held on 30.09.2021 and the resolution of such meeting was finally approved on 09.10.2021. 16. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, however, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that this logic is not to be seen in isolation or in silos. 16. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, however, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that this logic is not to be seen in isolation or in silos. He has referred to the provisions contained in Section 34(2) of the Act of 2007, which provides that that within 1(one) hour from the time fixed for the meeting of the General Assembly, if the quorum is not present, then the meeting shall be adjourned ordinarily to the same day in the next week at the same time and place, but the Chairman of the meeting may, however, decide to adjourn the meeting to a later date but not later than15(fifteen) days, or as may be specified in the Bye-Laws of the Society. 17. There is a proviso to the afore-noted Section that if a meeting of the AGM is called by the Members under Sub-Section (1) of Section 33, it shall not be adjourned but dissolved. 18. In that view of the matter, if the statement of the Board/appellant is accepted to be correct that the AGM was first held on 22.09.2021, which remained inquorate, then the next date would have been 29.09.2021 and not later. 19. This, coupled with the fact that from a bare look at the records, which reflects tampering/over-writing of the date, justifies the inference of the Reviewing Authority as also of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. 20. There is nothing on record, Mr. Sinha contends, which could be demonstrated that the Chairman of the Board fixed any special date for holding of the AGM. 21. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we have discerned few facts very clearly. 22. The records reflect that there is over-writing on the date. Ordinarily, if the claim of the appellant is correct that an inquorate AGM was held on 22.09.2021, then, perhaps, in all probability, the next would have been 29.09.2021 and not 30.09.2021, which was not because of any Sunday intervening in between those dates, justifying the next date. 23. However, we have also found that the logic employed by both the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority for coming to contradictory opinions, is not acceptable. 23. However, we have also found that the logic employed by both the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority for coming to contradictory opinions, is not acceptable. The logic employed by the Appellate Authority that the Proceeding Book was in custodia legis of the respondent No.4 pre-supposes that any tampering, if alleged, would have been done by him, is not without question. Likewise, the Reviewing Authority deciding that the tampering was done by the Board on the sole reason of the last signatory being the Chairman of the Board, is also incorrect. 24. Under this fact scenario, we are, prima facie of the view that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition in the first instance because of the disputed questions of fact. The issue ought to have been relegated to an appropriate forum or remitted to the Registrar of Co- operative Societies for taking a fresh look at the matter and decide after calling for evidence with respect to the allegation of tampering. 25. For the afore-noted reasons, we find that the impugned judgment is required to be interfered with. 26. We order accordingly. 27. We set aside the judgment impugned in the present appeal and remit the matter to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam to decide the issue afresh after taking due evidence with respect to tampering of the records and ascertaining as to at whose instance tampering was done or whether there was any tampering at all. The Registrar is directed to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of production of the certified copy of this judgment. 28. For the Registrar to decide the issue, he would be required to call upon the parties, asking them to adduce evidence whereafter he shall decide the issue by passing a speaking order within the time stipulated as above. 29. The issue with respect to the correctness of the order of disengagement of the respondent No.4 by the Board is also left open for the Registrar to decide. 30. With the above directions and observations, the appeal stands disposed off.