WA/239/2026 of AINAL MIYAN AND 3 ORS. Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. on 12 July 2026

ORDER

Date : 13.07.2026 (K.R. Surana, J)

1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned Standing counsel for the Cooperation Department representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate representing the respondent No. 6.

2. In the connected I.A.(Civil)/678/2026, the delay in filing this intra- court appeal has been condoned and moreover, the direction has been issued to register this appeal.

3. By filing this intra-court appeal, the appellants have assailed only that part of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/2016/2025, whereby a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) was ordered to be paid by the appellants jointly.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per his instructions, the appellants are having poor financial condition and are unable to pay the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only).

5. The learner Standing counsel for the Cooperation Department has opposed the prayer by citing the case of M/s. Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs. BOC India Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 345.

6. It is noticed that the learned Single Judge took into consideration, amongst others, the irresponsible/scurrilous statements made by the appellants against the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam, as well as against the learned departmental counsel for the Cooperation Department, not only dismissed the writ petition but also imposed the cost.

7. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that as the learned Single Judge has arrived at the finding of fact that scurrilous attacks have been made against the learned Standing counsel for the Cooperation Department without any cogent material and the further unsubstantiated allegations against the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam of indulging in illegal activities are good and sufficient cause for the court not only to dismiss the connected writ petition but also to impose a deterrent for making such irresponsible and scurrilous statements. The scurrilous attacks on the learned Standing counsel for the Cooperation Department also has to be strongly deprecated. Therefore, there is no apparent reason for the Court to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge.

8. However, taking note of the plea that the appellants are not in good financial condition, the Court is conditionally inclined to reduce the cost to Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally, it is ordered that within 45(forty five) days from the date of this order, the appellants shall deposit the said cost of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) before the District Legal Services Authority, Barpeta. The appellants after making such deposit shall file a proof of such deposit before this Court within a week thereafter with a copy thereof to the learned Standing counsel for the Cooperation Department.

9. It is made clear that this is a conditional order and therefore, if the proof of deposit is not produced before this Court within a period of 55(fifty five) days from the date of this order, this order would stand recalled without requiring any further order of this Court, and the original cost of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as imposed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed in WB(C) 2016/2025 shall stand revived and restored without any further order(s) of the Court.

10. The appearing learned counsel have been informed that this order can only be uploaded after the registration of the writ appeal.

11. This intra-court appeal stands disposed of with conditional order as indicated above.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant