Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Bhavnagar Jilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & 3 Others – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 3762, 3764, 3794 of 2022
Decided on : 30-09-2022
Investment - Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act - Section 71
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, sought permission to construct a chilling center. Despite submitting all details and particulars, the District Registrar rejected the application under section 71 of the Act. The petitioner's revision application was also rejected. The petitioner later discovered a circular stating that no permission was needed for expansion of business, leading to increased profits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a breach of natural justice as the Registrar passed the order without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court also analyzed the applicability of section 71 of the Act and concluded that the petitioner had enough funds for investment, rendering the requirement for previous sanction of the Registrar unnecessary.
Issues: Breach of natural justice, Applicability of section 71 of the Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Registrar's order without granting an opportunity of hearing was a breach of natural justice. It also determined that the petitioner had sufficient funds for investment, making the requirement for previous sanction of the Registrar unnecessary.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the District Registrar for a decision on the application after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani assisted by learned advocate Mr.Viral K. Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. Facts in all these petitions are similar and they have therefore, been heard analogously and would be disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner as well as the respondents are common in all these petitions.
4. For the sake of convenience, facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No.3762/2022.
5. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
Alternatively :
(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 7.7/8.2020 passed by the Registrar as also the order dated 20.1.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 and remand the matter back to the Registrar, so as to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, so that the Registrar may consider the document at Annexure-V and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(C) During the pendency hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 7.7/8.2020 passed by the Registrar rejecting the application and refusing to grant permission under Section 71 of the Act as also the order dated 20.1.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting the Revision Application No.40 of 2020.
(D) Any other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper looking to the facts of this case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner, interest of justice.”
6. Brief facts of the case are as under:
6.2) The petitioner sought permission under section 71 of the Act from the respondent to construct two storied chilling center at Sar on 23.03.2016 along with resolution dated 26.02.2016.
6.3) On 6.04.2016 the District Registrar directed the petitioner to apply in a particular format which was applied on 29.04.2016. On 8.8.2016 the petitioner had submitted all the enclosures, relevant documents and further details and particulars to the District Registrar. Though all the details and particulars were produced, respondent no.4-District Registrar vide communication dated 6.10.2016 directed the petitioner to provide further details.
6.4) In the meanwhile, due to huge inflow of milk from the milk producers’ society and shortage of space at chilling centre, in anticipation of getting the approval, the petitioner started the project of constructing the chilling center. On 8.5.2019, again the entire file with all the documents related to the
The judgment emphasizes the importance of natural justice and interprets the applicability of section 71 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, highlighting the necessity of previous sanction of t....
Previous sanction under Section 71 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 is a prerequisite for cooperative societies' investments, and post facto approval cannot be validated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners did not misapply the funds of the bank and did not breach the powers conferred upon them for making the investment.
for any reason if a new committee or the management for any reason whatsoever is not elected before the expiry of the term or that such Committee having been held is not functioning, as is the case o....
The court affirmed that only individuals with direct personal impact can challenge administrative decisions such as the issuance of a No Objection Certificate, emphasizing the necessity of locus stan....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registrar cannot exercise the power under Section 74D of the Societies Act when the election of the managing committee is restrained under....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
