Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 1185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
The Momaipura Mahila Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Registrar (Appeals) – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 15706, 16443 of 2020, With R/Special Civil Application No.9907 to 9910 of 2021
Decided on : 30-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Dipen Desai
For the Respondent: Mr Prakash Jani, Mr Shivang P.Jani, Mr VC Vaghela, Mr Dhawan Jayswal, Adv
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 - Sections 4, 9, and 153 - Cancellation of registration of cooperative society by Additional Registrar challenged - Appeal by existing society deemed not maintainable as no right of hearing prior to registration is recognized under the Act - Registration granted and maintained on statutory provisions. (Paras 7.1, 7.10, 28)
(B) Principle of Natural Justice - Existing societies may raise objections but have no inherent right to appeal against registration under Section 153 - The Registrar’s function in registration is administrative and does not invoke adversarial nature. (Paras 22, 24)
(C) Public Policy - Registration in certain cases may be subject to specific conditions, but the fundamental right to form cooperatives under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution must be upheld - Such registration should not unjustly restrict competition among cooperative societies. (Paras 24, 26)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner societies' registrations were challenged after being opposed by existing societies claiming adverse effects under the guise of Section 153. The existing societies failed to substantiate their claims of adverse effects, as recognized by the Registrar during registration proceedings.
Findings of Court:
Registrar followed statutory procedures in granting registration, and orders by Additional Registrar canceling registrations were quashed, affirming petitioners' rights to operate societies.
Issues: The primary legal question was the maintainability of appeals filed by existing societies against new society registrations, given that no statutory provision grants them such rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded existing societies do not possess a statutory right to appeal as the registration process is non-adversarial, and the authority's decision must prevail unless proven otherwise.
Result: The petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed, restoring registrations.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges against orders of registration (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments related to statutory rights of societies (Para 7) |
| 3. observations regarding existing societies' rights (Para 8) |
| 4. judgment based on interpretation of statutory provisions (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 19 , 23 , 27) |
| 5. final decision to quash the registration cancellation orders (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani assisted by learned advocate Mr.Shivang P.Jani and learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the respondents and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Shivang P. Jani, learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. These petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Additional Registrar under section 153 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (For short “the Act, 1961”) cancelling the registration of the petitioner societies granted by the District Registrar under section 4 of the Act, 1961.
4. As the issues involved in all the captioned petitions are the same and challenge is also to the similar order passed by respondent no.1-Additional Registrar, these petitions were heard analogously and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the pivotal issue involved in these petitions and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
5. The challenge to the impugned orders in the respective petitions are as under :
(1) In Special Civil Application No.16443 of 2020, Order dated 10.12.2020 passed by respondent no.1-Additional Registrar (Appeals) in Appeal no.53 of 2019 and consequential order dated 11.12.2020 of the respondent No.5-Election Officer excluding the name of the petitioner society in the voters list was challenged.
(2) In Special Civil Application No.9907 of 2021, Order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the respondent no.2-Additional Registrar (Appeals) in Appeal No.23 of 2021 was challenged.
(3) In Special Civil Application No.9908 of 2021, Order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the respondent no.2-Additional Registrar (Appeals) in Appeal No.24 of 2021 was challenged.
(4) In Special Civil Application No. 9909 of 2021, Order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the respondent no.2-Additional Registrar (Appeals) in Appeal No.25 of 2021 was challenged.
(5) In Special Civil Application No.9910 of 2021, Order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the respondent no.2-Additional Registrar (Appeals) in Appeal No.22 of 2021 was challenged.
(6) In Special Civil Application No.15706/2020, prayer is made to hold inaction of respondent no.2 and 3 in not taking any action on the representations of the petitioner as illegal and further to direct respondent no.4 to restart the collection of milk of the petitioner society.
6. For the sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No.16443/2020 is treated as the lead matter. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be summarised as under :
6.1) The petitioner society applied online for the registration of its society under the provisions of the Act, 1961 before respondent no.3- District Registrar.
6.2) Pursuant to the application of the registration of the petitioner society, respondent no.2 – The Vadhasar Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Limited filed its objections opposing the registration of the petitioner society.
6.3) Respondent no.3-District Registrar by letter dated 15.03.2019 called upon the petitioner society to file reply to such objections and statement of the petitioner was also recorded and considering the statements of the petitioner, respondent no.3 – District Registrar rejected the objection o
