SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
The Virnagar (Magarwada) Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 6806, 6809, 6811 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Dipen Desai
For the Respondent: Mr Jinesh H Kapadia

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a proper inquiry under relevant sections of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 before cancelling the registration of cooperative societies.

Headnote:

Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Registration Cancellation - Sections 155, 4, 84, 87, 88, 107 - The court modified the impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authority, directing the District Registrar to conduct an inquiry under sections 84, 87, and 88 of the Act, 1961 and initiate appropriate proceedings upon receipt of such report, if required under section 107 read with section 20 of the Act, 1961.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, cooperative societies registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, challenged the order passed by the Revisional Authority cancelling their registration. The Revisional Authority had cancelled the registration based on the violation of section 4 of the Act, 1961.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Revisional Authority had passed contradictory orders in similar cases and modified the impugned orders to direct an inquiry under sections 84, 87, and 88 of the Act, 1961 instead of cancellation of registration.

Issues: Contradictory orders by the Revisional Authority, violation of section 4 of the Act, 1961, and the need for proper inquiry under relevant sections of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned orders were modified to direct an inquiry under sections 84, 87, and 88 of the Act, 1961 instead of cancellation of registration, considering the contradictory orders and the need for proper inquiry.

Final Decision: The impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authority were modified to direct an inquiry under sections 84, 87, and 88 of the Act, 1961 instead of cancellation of the registration of the petitioners-Societies.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for respondent State and learned advocate Mr. Jinesh H. Kapadia for respondent Nos. 8 to 11.

2. By these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Revisional Authority in a suo motu revision under section 155 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act,1961] cancelling the registration of the petitioners-Societies.

3. As the issues arising in all the three petitions are identical, the same are heard and being disposed of by this common order. Special Civil Application No. 6806 of 2022 is treated as the lead case.

3.1 The petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the provisions of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.

3.2 The petitioner submitted a proposal to register the petitioner society before the District Panchayat, Banaskantha.

3.3 Respondent no.5 in its meeting dated 19th January, 2017 vide resolution NO. 19/30 unanimously resolved to register the petitioner society and accordingly registration certificate came to be issued to the petitioner on 20th January, 2017.

3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of registration of the petitioner society, the existing society namely Magarwada Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited had submitted no objection to the registration of the petitioner society.

3.5 Against the aforesaid registration of the petitioner-society, respondent no.4 vide proposal dated 14th February, 2017 addressed to respondent no.l3 directed to file suo motu revision application against the registration of the petitioner-society and similarly situated societies. On the basis of aforesaid proposal, respondent no.3 filed Suo Motu Revision Application No.80/2017 before respondent no.2 in which notice came to be issued on 20th May, 2017.

3.6 In response to the said notice, District Panchayat, Palanpur submitted its remarks to the respondent no.2 stating that the petitioner has submitted its no objection to the registration of the petitioner society. Taluka Development Officer has also given certificate that members of the newly registered society are not defaulters of existing society and existing society has no objection against the registration of the petitioner society.

3.7 The suo motu revision application remained pending for considerable long period of time. The petitioner-society has become member of Banaskantha District Central Cooperative Bank Limited-respondent No.7 and has been dispensing agricultural credit to its members.

3.8 Petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and filed its written submissions opposing the suo motu revision application.

3.9 During the pendency of the revision application respondent Nos. 8 to 11 filed an application on 08.10.2021 for being impleaded as party respondents in suo motu revision application.

3.10 Petitioner filed reply to the said application and opposed the said application.

3.11 Respondent No.2 however, vide order dated 16.11.2021 allowed the application for joining party.

3.12 The petitioner filed Revision Application No. 23 of 2022 challenging the said order in which notice is issued by the Revisional Authority.

3.13 It is the case of the petitioner that elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Vadgam were declared on 14.03.2022 and petitioner being Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area is eligible to be included in the voters’ list for the elections of Market Committee.

3.14 Respondent No.2-Additional Registrar vide impugned order dated 19.03.2022 allowed the suo motu revision application and set aside the registration of the petitioner-Society.

3.15 The petitioner has therefore, preferred this petition challenging the impugned orders.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai submitted that the respondent-authorities have passed contradictory orders in similar facts. It w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top