The court emphasized the necessity of public interest and adherence to natural justice in appointing government nominees to cooperative societies under Section 80(2) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.

1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the captioned writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Issue rule, returnable forthwith. Ms Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.5.

3. The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Registrar, Co-operative Societies modifying the order dated 26.08.2020, whereby, two nominee directors Shri Devrajbhai Khodabhai Sakhiya and Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra have been removed and Shri Mukeshbhai Parshottambhai Kamani and Shri Gauravsinh Mahavirsinh Jadeja came to be nominated.

4. The facts, in brief, are that since the election of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5 was due in the month of August 2020, election programme was declared under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1982”) on 23.07.2020. It is the case of the petitioners that apropos consent given by the respondent no.5 considering the public interest, vide order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies i.e. respondent no.3, the State Government has recommended three members. Being aggrieved, appeal was preferred before the Deputy Secretary. Initially, stay was granted but subsequently, the same came to be vacated by passing an order dated 28.09.2020.

4.1 Complaint was filed by Shri Arvindbhai Raiyani to the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, inter alia, alleging that one of the nominees is not holding the requisite qualification and is ineligible for being nominated as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”). Accepting the complaint, the respondent no.1, modified the order dated 26.08.2020 removing the two names as referred to hereinabove and nominating another two nominees by passing an order dated 28.09.2020. Being aggrieved, that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition.

5. Mr Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that on 26.08.2020, three persons were nominated by the respondent no.1. It is next submitted that one MLA from the Rajkot had filed a complaint dated 07.09.2020, inter alia, pointing out that Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra does not fulfil the requirement and therefore, he could not have been nominated as the Government nominee. With this, request was made to cancel his nomination. It is submitted that the report dated 08.09.2020 was submitted by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Considering the report, the names of the two nominees were cancelled and another two nominees were appointed as nominee of the Board of Directors.

5.1 It is next submitted that Section 80 of the Act of 1961 provides for power to appoint Government nominee and sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961 provides that where the State Government is of the opinion that having regard to the public interest involved in the operation of a society, it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may nominate its representative on the committee of such society as if the State Government had subscribed to the share capital of the society. It is submitted that therefore, the issue which would arise in the present case, is that what is the public interest involved in the taluka level society and how it is expedient to do so.

5.2 It is further submitted that the reply has been filed by the respondent; however, the reply is silent as to what is the public interest involved. Replies in succession were filed; however, the aspect of public interest wa