( 1 ) THE petitioners by this Special Civil Application under Art. 226 of the Constitution are challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the action of the respondent No. 2 of refusing to take action under Sec. 145-F of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 against the respondent No. 5.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the agriculturists having their agricultural lands at village of their native places disclosed in the cause title of the petition. The petitioners are the members of the respondent No. 4-Co-operative Society. The election of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 4-Society was held recently and result thereof was declared in December, 1998. On 6/01/1999 after election of the new Board of Directors, meeting of the newly constituted Board of Directors was held. The petitioners first time learnt by an advertisement in the Gujarat Samachar in its daily edition of 7-1-1999 that the respondent No. 5 functions as the Manager of the Milk Society. The respondent No. 5 is the member of the board of Directors of the respondent No. 4-Society. On 17/01/1999, the petitioners raised the objection that the respondent No. 5 is functioning as the Manager of the Milk Society, cannot continue as member of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 4-Society. On 8/01/1999, the petitioner submitted an application making this complaint to the respondent No. 3. On 11/01/1999, the petitioners submitted another application to the respondent No. 3 pointing out that the election of respondent No. 5 as Vice-Chairman of respondent No. 4 is illegal since he has incurred disqualification to continue as such in view of the provisions as contained in Sec. 145 of the Act. The respondent No. 3 vide its letter dated 15/01/1999 called upon the petitioner No. 1 to remain present in its office on 23rd January, 1999 at 16-00 hours with the evidence to show as to how the respondent No. 5 is not qualified to continue as member of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 4-Society. The respondent No. 5 submitted its reply to this notice on 2/02/1999 before the respondent No.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3 vide its communication dated 25/02/1999 informed that the application submitted by the petitioners dated 11/01/1999 was considered and since the subject-matter of the application being one of the election dispute, the petitioners may approach to the Tribunal within time-limit and may obtain the appropriate relief. The petitioner instead of filing election petition in the matter filed this Special Civil Application before this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this order of the respondent no. 2 is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. It is a case where the respondent no. 5 has incurred disqualification to continue as member of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 4-Society and by virtue of the provisions as contained in Sec. 76-B and Sec. 145-F of the Act, 1961, the respondent No. 2 should have declared him to be disqualified to hold the office. It has next been contended that the representation has been made by the petitioners to the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 3 has called upon them for hearing but the order has been passed by the respondent No. 2 which is contrary to the basic principles of natural justice.

( 4 ) I have given my thoughful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

( 5 ) TO appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, first of all I consider it to be appropriate to have a glance at the relevant provisions of the Act, 1961. Section 76-B of the Act, 1961 reads as under :"removal of office :- (1) If, in the opinion of the Registrar, any officer makes persistent default or is negligent in performance of the duties imposed on him by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws or does anything which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or where he stands disqualified by or under this Act, the re