1. Rule Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Kariel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 waive service of Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. Challenge made in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by Co-operative Housing Society against the order dated 8.7.2013 at Annexure-A whereby the respondent No.2 – District Registrar has ordered to join respondent Nos.3 and 4 – the members of the society as parties in the proceedings for approval of amendment in the bye-laws of the society.

3. It is the case of the petitioner society that in Annual General Meeting, convened by the society on 26.6.2011, Resolution No.8 was passed for amendment in Bye-law No.14(2) and for Bye-law No.91. The proposal dated 6.7.2011 for approval of the amendment in the bye-laws was then sent to respondent No.2-the District Registrar. The petitioner has averred that though Section 13(2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) requires the District Registrar to dispose of the application for registration of amendment in the bye-law within 60 days, he did not consider such proposal within the said time limit but sent notice dated 18.10.2011 asking the petitioner society to remain present on 10.11.2011 with certain records. The petitioner though provided necessary details before 11.11.2011 and requested by letter dated 9.1.2012 to immediately consider the application for registration of amendment in the bye-law, respondent No.2 sent communication dated 24.1.2012 calling upon the society to explain as regards the objection submitted by respondent No.3 against grant of amendment in the bye-laws. The petitioner has further averred that the petitioner replied to the said objections pointing out that respondent No.3 had no authority to object to the decision unanimously taken by the general body for amendment in the bye-laws. It is further case of the petitioner that even thereafter also, respondent No.2 did not consider the application of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was required to make a complaint before the Commissioner of Societies, Gujarat State, so as to direct respondent No.2 to take immediate action on the application for registration of the amendment in the bye-laws. Unfortunately, even after the Commissioner asked respondent No.2 to decide such application, respondent No.2 did not do so and therefore, the petitioner again by letter dated 1.1.2013 brought to the notice of respondent No.2 the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act to point out that the application for amendment in the bye-law was required to be decided within 60 days from the receipt of the proposal for such purpose. It was then respondent No.2 issued notice dated 10.1.2013 to the petitioner society to remain present for hearing on 31.1.2013 and also stated that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had submitted their written representation on 7.2.2012. The petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the representation made by respondent Nos.3 and 4. The respondent No.2 however issued notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 informing them to remain present for hearing. The petitioner, therefore, objected to give hearing to respondent Nos.3 and 4. However, as averred in the petition, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 8.7.2013, whereby respondent Nos.3 and 4 are ordered to be joined as parties in the proceedings for registration of amendment in the bye-laws. The petitioner has thus come before this Court challenging the above-said order.

4. The petition is opposed by affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 stating that the petitioner has alternative remedy under Sections 153 and 155 of the Act. It is further stated that the order of the District Registrar joining the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as parties in the proceedings