Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case impugned order passed by Tribunal is sustainable.

R.M. Chhaya J.—RULE. Mr. Ravindra. R. Shah, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1-Bank, and Mr. Rakesh. R. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No. 2, waive service of rule for the respective parties. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

2. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:—

“(A) the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 21.3.03 passed by the learned Board of Nominees Court allowing Summary Lavad Case No. 3692/02 at Annexure E, and the order dated 30.9.05 rejecting the Farifile Application No. 110/05 at Annexure H, as well as the order dated 23.11.11 passed by Respondent No. 2, Cooperative Tribunal rejecting Appeal No. 403/06 at Annexure L;

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 21.3.03 passed by the learned Board of Nominees Court allowing Summary Lavad Case No. 3692/02 at Annexure E, and the order dated 30.9.05 rejecting the Farifile Application No. 110/05 at Annexure H as well as the order dated 23.11.11 passed by Respondent No. 2, Cooperative Tribunal rejecting Appeal No. 403/06 at Annexure L;

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, record and proceedings of Appeal No. 403/06 as well as the board (listing the matters) maintained by Respondent No. 2 dated 23.11.11 may be called for in the interest of justice;

(D) ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of Paras (B) & (C) hereinabove may please be granted.

(E) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in the facts of the case may be granted.”

3. Heard Mr. Shirish Joshi with Mr. Baiju Joshi, learned advocates for the petitioners, Mr. Ravindra. R. Shah, learned advocate for Respondent No. 1-Bank, and Mr. Prakash K. Jani, learned Government Pleader, with Mr. Rakesh. R. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No. 2.

4. It appears from the prayers that it is an ordinary petition challenging the orders passed by the Board of Nominees as well as the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal (the Tribunal), which would have entailed hearing in due course. However, suffice it to say that the present petition arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 403 of 2006 dated 23.11.2011 (at Annexure-L to the petition). Petitioner No. 1 and its sister concern are also pursuing another Appeal No. 402 of 2006 as well as Revision Application No. 160 of 2009, which are pending for hearing before the Tribunal. Earlier the orders passed by the Tribunal in a similar fashion in Revision Application No. 160 of 2009 came to be challenged before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 18510 of 2011, which came to be allowed vide judgment and order 29.12.2011 and the order passed in the Revision Application, impugned in the said petition, was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded for its re-hearing to the Tribunal. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, incidentally, the said proceedings are kept for hearing before the Tribunal today.

5. This Court vide order dated 29.12.2012 had passed the following order:—

“Notice for final disposal returnable on 12.01.2012. Mr. Rakesh. R. Patel, learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondent No. 2 as connected matter between the same parties is also listed today. At the request of the Court, Mr. Ravindra Shah, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1 Bank accepts advance copy of the petition. Ad-interim relief in terms of Para 12(B) till then. Direct service is permitted.”

At the request of the Court, Mr. P.K. Jani, learned Government Pleader, appeared before the court and was also called for the proceedings of Appeal No. 403 of 2006.

6. From the original record of the said proceedings it transpires that the said appeal was