S.G. Shah, J.

1. Rule in Special Civil Application No. 9846/2015. Service of rule is waived by Ms. Shruti Pathak, Ld. AGP for respondent No. 1, Mr. Chhaya, Ld. Advocate for respondent No. 2, Ms. Jani, Ld. Advocate for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Thakkar, Ld. Advocate for respondent No. 4.

2. These two petitions are raising the same issues against same set of respondents, though petitioners are different and, therefore, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment, because the grievance of the petitioners are common, so also the factual details and material evidence to resolve such dispute. The only difference is the residential bungalow numbers of the petitioners, but all the bungalows are part of respondent No. 3 society and, therefore, only one set of documents and arguments are taken into consideration since the petitioners of another petition have adopted the arguments of petitioner of first petition and the respondents have nothing to add or differentiate between two petitions.

3. In addition to above clarification, only disclosure of difference between two petitions is to the effect that the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 8779/2015 is owner and occupant of bungalow No. 39 of Manekbaug Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., being respondent No. 3; whereas the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 9846/2015 are owners and occupants of bungalow Nos. 27 and 30 of the same society. Thereby in-all, three occupants of three different bungalows have initiated such litigation and challenged the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contending that it is arbitrary and discriminatory. Whereas allegations against the respondent No. 4 are to the effect that being contractor of the work under reference, they are not performing their part of the duties in accordance with terms and conditions of the work order and do not take care of technical issues which resulted into difficult situations at the site. However, there are no allegations against respondent No. 5, but some directions are sought for so as to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against office bearers of respondent No. 3 by the respondent No. 5.

4. Considering the rival submissions, the identity of all the litigants is also equally necessary to be recollected here. As aforesaid, all the petitioners are owners and occupants of their residential bungalows in the society being respondent No. 3 and to that extent, they are members of the cooperative society. This fact has raised question of locus-standi and jurisdiction, which would be taken care of hereinafter.

5. Whereas, the respondent No. 1 is State and its policy to carry out certain activity within the societies through the respondent No. 2 being local authority, is under challenge. Thereby the respondent No. 1 is State, whereas the respondent No. 2 is local body, namely Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Both these respondents are carrying out certain activities within the society by modifying the internal road of the society being respondent No. 3, namely Manekbaug Cooperative Housing Society. The respondent No. 4 is the contractor to whom work order is issued by the respondent No. 2 in accordance with the Scheme of the respondent No. 1 and input by the respondent No. 3. Whereas the respondent No. 5 is District Registrar of Cooperative Societies since there are certain allegations against the administration of respondent No. 3 society.

6. Even at the cost of making this document bulky, considering the objections raised by the respondents regarding locus standi of the petitioners, so also maintainability of such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary to recollect the prayers and, therefore, they are reproduced hereunder for ready reference. Fortunately all the prayers in clauses [A] to [I] in both the petitions are pari-materia same in verbatim and, therefore, only one set of prayers is reproduced hereunder.

"[A] Your Lordships be pleased to issue a wri