Important Point-A judgment is a precedent for what it decides and not what may appear to logically flow from it.

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this application, the applicants – original petitioners seek review of the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us J. B. Pardiwala, J., was a party) in the Special Civil Application No.676 of 2011 principally on the ground that few submissions on pure questions of law although were raised and argued yet the same have not been considered and dealt with in the judgment.

2. Since this is a review application, it is necessary for us to look into the subject matter of the main petition. The main petition was filed with the following prayers:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the provisions of Sections 150(1), 150(2) and 150(3) of the Gujarat Cooperatives Societies Act, 1961 are ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent the same confers unbridled and untrammeled power upon the State Government to appoint the Members of the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal and to prescribe the qualifications for appointment of persons to the said posts.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent State Government to seek effective consultation of this Hon’ble Court before appointing the Members of the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal and the Members of the Board of Nominees;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to forbear from appointing the Registrar’s Nominees and the Members of the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal without following the provisions of Part-VI Chapter-6 of the Constitution of India;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that the impugned notification dated 06.10.2010 (at Annexure-O hereto) is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contumacious and in clear breach of the undertaking given by the State Government to this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application No.1835 of 2000 and 10801 of 2009 and be further pleased to quash and set aside the said notification dated 06.10.2010;

(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned notification dated 04.12.2010 at Annexure-R hereto;

(F) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent State Government and/or the respondent No.2 to henceforth constitute a Bench of the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal comprising of at least one Judicial Member;

(G) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of :

(I) the impugned notification dated 06.10.2010 at Annexure-O hereto;

(II) the impugned notification dated 04.12.2010 at Annexure-R hereto;

(H) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent State Government and/or the respondent No.2 from constituting any bench of the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal without at least one judicial member;

(I) An ex-parte Advocate Appeared :-interim relief in terms of prayers (G) and (H) above

may kindly be granted;

(J) Such other relief(s) as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted;”

3. The grievance of the Association was mainly with regard to the absence of a transparent mechanism in the adjudicatory process by the Registrar’s Nominee as well as the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal while discharging functions and duties under the provisions of the Sections 96 to 102 of the Cooperative Societies Act [hereinafter to as ‘the Act’]. The case of the Association was