Point of Law: A person who is not a party and who has not been served with such notice (notice of the judgment or order) cannot appeal without leave, but a person who might properly have been a party may obtain leave to appeal.”

JUDGMENT :

1 In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner reads as under:

“6(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the proceedings of Lavad Suit No. 183 of 2020 preferred by the respondent no.1 before the Board of Nominees, Mehsana, and also be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 17.11.2020 passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana, in Lavad Suit No. 183 of 2020 both annexed at Annexure: A Colly to the present petition.”

2 The facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are Cooperative Societies registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act and members of the respondent No.2 – Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited, and petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 are individual members of the respondent No.2 – Union. The respondent No.2, Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union is a specified Society under Section 74(C) of the Act. The last elections to the no.2 Union were held in November 2015, and therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 74(C)(2), the Managing Committee's term was to expire in November 2020. The provisions of Section 74(C)(4) provides that the elections are to be held before the term of the Managing Committee expires.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that the byelaws provide for 16 seats for the Board of Directors out of which 11 seats are to be filled up by all the representatives of the Milk Producers' Union 1 seat for each taluka, four seats as per byelaw 35(1)(a)(2) for highest supplier of the taluka and one seat for delegate of other societies and individual members.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 Union had started finalizing the process of elections by finalizing the limits of constituencies after inviting objections vide public notice dated 14.03.2020 and the final list of constituencies was prepared on 09.07.2020 which was sent to the Collector. After the pandemic, the Collector on 20.11.2020 granted permission to go ahead with the process of election and therefore the respondent No.2 Union vide public notice dated 20.11.2020 called for resolutions of the delegates of the member societies. The respondent No.1 preferred Lavad Suit no. 183 of 2020 before the Board of Nominees challenging the constituencies prepared by the respondent No.2 Union for the constituency of other societies and individual members. The respondent No.1 is a Society falling within the constituency of other societies. These constituencies i.e the constituency of the other societies and the individual members are required to elect delegates who would then elect one director from their constituency.

2.4 The respondent No.1, according to the petitioner, has intentionally not joined the delegates of other societies and individual members as party respondents, and therefore, though the petitioners are not party respondents, they are necessary, and therefore, the petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the lavad suit.

3. Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioners, would submit by drawing the attention to the provisions of Section 74(C) that the provision provides for the conduct of elections of Committees and officers of certain societies. He would submit that this provision is a separate provision, and therefore, receives entirely a special treatment. He would submit that when read in context of Section 145 onwards, elections of committees and officers of certain societies are provided for, and they are special provisions.

3.1 Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, would submit that the Lavad Suit preferred by the respondent No.1 is not maintainable as the Board of Nominees has no jurisdiction or authority to entertain the suit. It is on this count that the petitioners have challenged th