The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of authorization for filing an appeal, highlighting the fundamental flaw in the judgment of the Tribunal and emphasizing the legal provisions under Rule 42 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules, 1965.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2004, passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad ("the Tribunal" for short) in Appeal No. 429/2001 and to restore the judgment and order dated 09.04.2001, passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana, in Lavad Suit No. 433/1987 (new No. 321/1990).

2. Rule was issued in the petition on 27.06.2006. Though served, none appears for the respondent-Shivshanker Cooperative Housing Society Limited. Even after the passage of several years, the position has remained the same and the respondent-Society has chosen not to put in an appearance before the Court. In order to do complete justice, this Court has requested Mr. Neeraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader to assist the Court, as the State Government is not party to the proceedings. He has kindly consented to do so.

3. A brief factual background of the matter is required to be narrated. The petitioner herein was appointed as the Secretary of the respondent-Society, by a Resolution dated 31.08.1986 and was performing his duties as such. There was an audit of the accounts of the society for the period between 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1986, which revealed that an amount of Rs. 35,000/- had not been deposited by the petitioner in the concerned Bank. When the audit was completed, it is alleged that the petitioner, in the presence of the Auditor and other members of the respondent-Society, admitted that an amount of Rs. 33,450.11ps. had not been deposited by him in the Bank and that he had used it for personal purposes. This admission was recorded in writing and later produced as Exhibit-27 before the Board of Nominees. The respondent-Society, therefore, preferred the above-mentioned Lavad Suit in the Court of the Board of Nominees, Mehsana, to recover the amount of Rs. 35,000/- from the petitioner (original defendant). The Board of Nominees dismissed the suit of the respondent-Society (original plaintiff) by an order dated 09.04.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-Society preferred Appeal No. 429/2001 before the Tribunal. After adjudicating the matter, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2004, whereby the judgment of the Board of Nominees, rejecting the suit, has been quashed and set aside. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment of the Tribunal before this Court.

4. Though a number of contentions were raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal on the merits of the matter, however, before this Court the main contention that has been urged is that the memorandum of the appeal preferred by the respondent-Society before the Tribunal has been signed by one Shri Naresh Joshi, who describes himself as the Vice Chairman of the respondent-Society. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the memorandum of appeal, no seal of the society has been affixed under the signature showing that Shri Naresh Joshi is, in fact, the Vice Chairman. Moreover, there is no Resolution of the society authorizing Shri Naresh Joshi to file the appeal before the Tribunal. No such Resolution has been produced by the respondent-Society before the Tribunal.

5. Mr. Dev Patel, learned advocate for Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has strongly emphasized the above contention and has indicated that in order to examine the same this Court had directed that the record and proceedings of the Tribunal be made available. He has submitted that upon perusal of the record and proceedings, it transpires that there is no document on record indicating that Shri Naresh Joshi, Vice Chairman of the respondent-Society, had been authorized by way of a Resolution passed by the said Society to prefer the appeal before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the suit before the Board of Nominees was instituted by the father of Shri Naresh Joshi, who was the Chair