( 1 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner was the member of respondent No. 1 society. It is the case of the Society that certain amounts were required to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent society and they were not paid in spite of the demand and, therefore, on 30-11-1975 a resolution was passed at the general board meeting of the respondent society for expelling the petitioner as the member of the society. It appears that when it came to the notice of the District Registrar on 27-5-1976, the District Registrar addressed a letter to the Chairman of the respondent Society that the resolution passed at the general board meeting would not become effective on its own and as per the Section 36 of the Act, a proposal is required to be submitted to the District Registrar and, thereafter the procedure is required to be undertaken. If such proposal is not submitted, the action shall be unconstitutional or illegal. Thereafter, the District Registrar, once again has addressed a letter dated 17-6-1976 to the Chairman of the respondent Society reiterating the same. However, it has been stated in the said letter that the earlier letter dated 15-12-1975 forwarded by the respondent Society to the office of the District Registrar is not a complete proposal and, therefore, the society was instructed to forward proper proposal and it was also said that since no permission is granted the resolution for expelling the petitioner would not become effective. Thereafter, once again on 15-7-1976, the letter was addressed by the District Registrar to the respondent society, calling upon the respondent society to produce the copy of the resolution etc. , for taking appropriate action. When the aforesaid came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 2 8/09/1976, the petitioner preferred lavad suit No. 2678/1976 before the Registrars Board of Nominees for declaring the resolution dated 30-11-1975 as illegal and void. The contention of the petitioner in the said suit was that the mandatory requirement for passing the resolution under Section 36 of the Act for giving opportunity etc. , is not followed and, therefore, resolution is null and void. In the said suit, the respondent herein appeared and, thereafter the issues were framed and deposition was also recorded of the plaintiff on 5/12/1981. Thereafter in the year 1990, it appears that the application Ex. 58 came to be submitted by the respondent Society contending that there is no jurisdiction with the learned Nominee under Section 96 of the Act for entertaining the suit since the matter is pertaining to the expulsion under Section 36 of the Act. The learned Nominee passed the order dated 13-11-1991 below Application Ex. 58 and allowed the application and declared that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, therefore, the suit is dismissed. The petitioner preferred appeal No. 367/1991 before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal and the learned Tribunal ultimately for the reasons recorded in the judgement and order dated 26-2-1993 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Nominee. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

( 2 ) MR. KETAN Shah, learned counsel appearing with Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Counsel, has submitted that since there is no decision of the District Registrar of either granting approval or of not granting approval under Section 36 of the Act, the petitioner cannot prefer the appeal and he submitted that the challenge in the suit is regarding the legality and validity of the resolution and, therefore, judgement in the case of "jitendra Natverlal Thaker and Ors. v. Hirabag Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. ", reported in 1978 (Vo. 19) GLR, 92 would not be applicable since the petitioner, who is plaintiff in the suit has challenged the legality and validity of the resolution on the ground that the mandatory procedure is not followed. He submitted that when the appeal cannot be prefer