( 1 ) RULE. Mr. K. G. Vakharia, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for Mr. Tushar Mehta for the respondent No. 1 waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Dabhi, Ld. AGP appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. With the consent of parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.

( 2 ) THE present petition is preferred by the petitioners who are claiming to be the members of Vatva Kadamgiri Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the society") against the order dated 17. 8. 01 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") in Lavad Appeal No. 68/00.

( 3 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the members of Vatva Kadamgiri Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. The case of the petitioners is that the erstwhile organiser and the developer of the society, namely, Naranbhai Pandya and others had obtained the loan of Rs. 18,13,000. 00 from the respondent No. 1-Bank, and the further case of the petitioners is that the erstwhile Organiser had the dummy members in the society. It is the case of the petitioner that they have become members of the society in the year 1990 whereas the loan was taken in the year 1981-85. It is further alleged by the petitioners that when the recovery notice came to be issued only they came to know that one Lavad Suit No. 494/96 is filed by the respondent No. 1-Bank for the recovery of loan amount and in the said lavad suit exparte judgment and award has been passed by the learned Nominee. The case of the petitioners is that 117 out of 159 members of the society filed Restoration Application No. 187/97 before the learned Nominee and in the said application for restoration on 3. 10. 1997 learned Nominee passed the order whereby the operation of the award was stayed on condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 11 lacs.

( 4 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that it was beyond the capacity of the petitioners to deposit the said amount and therefore the petitioners had preferred Special C. A. No. 8971/97 before this court and the said petition came to be disposed of as per the order dated 31. 1. 01 by observing that the petition is preferred without exhausting the alternative remedy and it was also further observed by this court that the petitioners are at liberty to file appeal or revision application within two weeks for redressal of their grievance and in case such appeal or revision is preferred by the petitioner-society before the tribunal, the tribunal will decide the same on merits in accordance with law without going into the question of limitation within a period of one month thereafter. However, it is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that the said petition was preferred by the society and not the petitioners herein.

( 5 ) THE petitioners thereafter appear to have preferred Appeal No. 68/00 before the Tribunal and the tribunal as per order dated 17. 8. 01 dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that there is no application for leave to prefer appeal and therefore the appeal can not be entertained on merits. It is this order dated 17. 8. 01 passed by the tribunal which is under challenge in this petition.

( 6 ) BEFORE the contentions of the rival parties are examined, it is worthwhile to mention that to test the bonafides of the petitioners, this court had passed an order on 23. 4. 02 directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 1500. 00 each and it is reported that baring 5/6 petitioners rest of the petitioners have deposited the amount which virtually comes to Rs. 1 lac. The contention of the petitioners is that they are the members who are directly affected by the outcome of the award and therefore there was right to prefer the appeal. However, it is fairly stated that application for leave to appeal could not be submitted and it is further contended that when this court had passed order on 31. 1. 2001 the appeal was to be decided on merits and therefore the petitioners have appr