T.C. Das, J. - (1.)TINSUKIA Barbeel Min Silpa Samabay Samiti Ltd. the writ Petitioner has challenged the order dated 3 -7 -85 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Jorbat in temporarily suspending the Executive Committee of the Petitioner society and appointing the Senior Inspector, Co -operative Societies, Colaghat, as Executive Officer of the said society. The Petitioner society has therefore prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus us and or any other appropriate writ or direction against the authority concerned and to quash the order dated 3 -7 -85.
(2.)WRIT of mandamus is often used as an adjunct to certiorari if a tribunal or authority acts in a matter where it has no power to act at all. If there is power to act but the power is exercised in breach of natural justice or by committing an error on the face of the record, certiorari will quash and mandamus may issue simultaneously for a proper re -hearing. Although both certiorari and mandamus are discretionary remedies, the court's direction must be limited by the basic rules of judicial Control, Can it be said that every administrative action be treated as judicial act If it adversely affects any person's right and entail a penalty? The answer would be to in affirmative if such decision or action affects the right of a citizen what he enjoys under provision of Law and the Constitution, The next question will arise: whether in all cases the principle of natural justice is applicable while discharging the administrative function by the authority? In Administrative Law natural justice is well defined which comprises of two fundamental rules -(a) a fair procedure and (b) that a man may not be a Judge of his own cause and that the defence must always be fairly heard. They apply equally to administrative power and sometimes also by power created by contract. In judging the standard of reasonableness the power must be exercised reasonably taking in view that this is of no less important doctrine. If a discretion is allowed that discretion must be exercised reasonably. The discretion must not be unreasonable. The authority must exclude from consideration the matters which are irrelevant to what it has to consider.
The writ Petitioner's case is that the Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Jorhat, by the order dated 3.7.85 in unreported application of the provision Under Section 36 of the Assam Co -operative Societies Act, 1949 (as amended) "in short the Act" suspended the Executive Committee and also appointed an Executive officer to manage the affairs of the society till a new Executive committee is elected by the Annual General Meeting of the Society or until further order that may be issued by the Department, The Petitioner -society is a registered Co -operative Society comprising of the actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste having an area of operation with Rangamati Sensowa Gaon and Nakkati Bhakat Cpahari within Golaghat Sub -division in the district of Jorhat, By order under Memo No. CSGG.3/81/Pt.l/188 dt. 29 -6 -85, the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Golaghat, issued a direction to all registered Co -operative Societies within Golaghat Sub -division to bold Annual General Meeting of the Societies including the Petitioner -society for election of a new Executive Committee before 29 -8 -85 and to get the same approved by him. It is stated by the Petitioner that the existing Executive Committee of the Petitioner -society which was duly elected and approved on 11 -9 -84, smoothly managed the affairs of the Petitioner -society and the term of the Executive Committee is to expire on and from 29 -8 -85, According to the Petitioner, election would be held in the Annual General Meeting to elect a new Executive Committee to function on and from 29 -8 -85 for a period of one year. Therefore, the Executive Committee wanted to hold it meeting on 25 -7 -83 and issued notice dt. 8 -7 -85 to all members of the society intimating that the election would be held on 25 -7 -85.

(3.)HOWEVER , in the meantime the impugned notice/order dt. 3 -7 -85 came in between, and as such, the proposed election to be held on 25 -7 -85 could not take place. In other words the effect of the notice of the Executive committee of the Petitioner -society issued on 8 -7 -85 remained ineffective.
;