( 1 ) KALYANBAUG Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others, petitioners have filed this petition challenging the judgment and order dated 30/03/1988, passed by the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara and also the order of the Gujarat Co-operative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the tribunal) dated 2/09/1989, passed in Appeal No. 238 of 1988 filed by the petitioner in this behalf whereby the tribunal has dismissed the said appeal.

( 2 ) ). THE facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-2. 1the first petitioner society has been incorporated at Manjalpur after obtaining necessary permission from Government of Gujarat under Sec. 20 of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1976 ). The Government granted permission to the said society on a condition that all the members were supposed to fulfil the same. According to one of the condition, the members of the society were supposed to file declaration form and copy of which was required to be submitted before the competent Authority under the Act of 1976. 2. 2it has been further stated that the Annual general Meeting of the petitioner no. 1 society held on 27. 9. 1981 had decided to allot a plot to its members who furnish their declaration form within two months. Inspite of approximately more than four months time was given and next special general meeting for allotment was held on 4. 4. 82, even then the respondent No. 1 had not filed declaration form as per demand and he was not allotted the plot. The petitioner No. 2 had been allotted the plot no. 16-A in the petitioner No. 1 society. 2. 3in view of the same, the respondent No. 1 had filed a Lavad Case being L. C. No. 1362/84 before the learned Board of Nominees, Vadodara. In that case both the petitioners chose not to remain present before the learned Nominee as they were under the impression that it was a dispute between petitioner no. 1 society and the respondent no. 1. The learned Nominee proceeded ex-parte and delivered the judgment on 30. 3. 88. 2. 4it may be noted that when the judgment was delivered, from the rojkam, it appears that both the petitioners were absent in this behalf. 2. 5from the record it appears that the award of the nominee has to be communicated to the parties by registered post as per Rule 41 (4) (b) of the Gujarat co-operative Societies Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules ). However, it appears from the record that the said procedure has not been followed in this case. However, the petitioners came to know about the contents of the award of the nominee somewhere in June 1988 and as per Sec. 102 of the Gujarat Co-operative societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the act), the petitioners filed appeal against the award of the nominee. The said appeal was also filed in June 1988. 2. 6when the appeal reached hearing before the tribunal, the tribunal has rejected the appeal of the petitioners only on the ground that the petitioners chose not to remain present voluntarily before the Nominee. According to the tribunal, the petitioners refused to accept the summons of the Lavad Case and the notice which was issued was also refused by the petitioners at the relevant time and on that ground the appeal was dismissed.

( 3 ) MR. B. S. PATEL, learned advocate for the petitioner has invited my attention to Section 102 of the Act which provides appeal against decision of registrar of his nominee or board of nominees and Rule 41 of the Rules particularly Rule 41 (4) (b) of the Rules which reads as under:"rule 41. Procedure of hearing and decision:- (1) The adjudicating authority shall record a brief note in English or in Gujarati language of the evidence of the parties and witnesses who attend and upon the evidence so recorded and upon consideration of any documentary evidence produced by either side, a decision shall be given in accordance with justice, enquiry and good conscience and it shall be reduced to writing