Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.D. Kothari, J.
The Nagafana (Gogapura) Prathmik Krushi and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
Chandaji Goliya Deesa Taluka and Ors. – Respondent
Appeal From Order No. 353 of 2015 and Civil Application No. 12742 of 2015 in Appeal From Order No. 353 of 2015
Decided On : 05-05-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :B.S. Patel, Advocate for Chirag B. Patel, Advocate
For the Respondents:Percy Kavina, Ld. Sr. Advocate and Anil H. Patel, Caveator
Important Point
Registering authority should record reasons either for grant or refusal of registration.
Headnote:(A) Appeal – Scope and ambit – Unless order under challenge is perverse or contrary to binding decision or on such like ground order is vitiated, Appellate Court could not interfere in discretionary order passed by Trial Court – Interference merely on ground that alternate view is possible, is not permissible – Exercise of discretion by Trial Court may be either way, interference in appeal is fairly limited.
(B) Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act – Section 166 – Registering authority should record, however briefly, reasons either for grant or refusal of registration – This would ensure a degree of transparency in deciding applications and will also enable higher authority/Court to properly appreciate order passed by Registering authority.
Result – Appeal dismissed.
R.D. Kothari, J.
1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr. Patel waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. This appeal from order arises from granting of interim relief by the learned trial Court.
3. In Exhibit-5 application in Special Civil Suit No. 252 of 2015 in substance, the plaintiffs prayer is; that the defendants themselves and/or their agents, servants or assignee etc., be restrained from giving effect - directly or indirectly - to the various resolutions (number of which is given in the relief clause) passed in a meeting held on 13.03.2015 and also to resolutions passed in meeting held on 06.04.2015. In view of resolutions passed in earlier meeting dated 13.03.2015, new and proposed Society i.e. defendants Nos. 2 to 19 came to be registered and in view of the resolutions passed in later meeting dated 26.04.2015, new and proposed Society i.e. defendants Nos. 20 to 43 came to be registered.
3.1. In the plaint, the plaintiff has pointed out how Co-operative Society is to be formed. Shortly stated, it says that for formation of Co-operative Society there should be ten promoters. Then Gram Sabha meeting is to be convened. In that meeting of Gram Sabha, these 10 persons would be nominated as promoters. Thereafter, share capital is to be collected from the members of the Society and then, Bank Account is to be opened in the name of proposed Society. Certificate of bank in this regard i.e. about account operated is to be obtained. The members of the Society thereafter has to collect necessary certificate from Talati-cum-Mantri including the certificate of they being agriculturist. Thereafter, proposal with application and relevant papers would be sent to Taluka Vistran Officer (TVO). The TVO on receipt of such material would verify the same, which includes making of local inspection. After such verification and after he being satisfied, he would forward the papers to - Assistant District Registrar (Panchayat), of Agricultural, Production, Co-operation and Irrigation Committee - along with his report. On receipt of such proposal, the Assistant District Registrar (Panchayat) would issue Public Notice inviting objections, if any, against the registration of proposed Society. Such Notice would be duly published. If the authority receives objections, it will be duly considered. Thereafter, the proposal would be forwarded to the Supervisory Committee. Then as per the advise of Supervisory Committee, the proposal would be included in the Agenda. The proposal would be considered by the Agricultural, Production, Cooperation and Irrigation Committee and Co-operative Society would then come into existence on the recommendations made by the Committee.
3.2. Broadly stated, Co-operative Society is formed in above manner. As to the case of parties, briefly stated, it is the say of the defendants that formation of their Society is in accordance with law. Against that, it is the say of the plaintiff that unnecessary haste is shown in the formation of Society and in the process, the Society in the present case, came to be formed in the violation of direction given by this Court in Vachhol Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited v. State of Gujarat & Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 15560 of 2003 and others dated 07.10.2006. The plaintiff has raised other plea also including the plea that formation of Society is for political purpose only and it is to gain score over rivals in elections of APMC and other elections. Against that it is the say of the defendant that suit is instituted only with political motive and the plaintiffs have wrongly imputed motive on the part of defendants. The defendant has raised other pleas also including want of jurisdiction of Civil Court.
4. Heard the learned advocates for the parties.
5. Learned advocate Shri B.S. Patel for the appellant has submitted that jurisdiction of Civil Cou
