Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2692/2006 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2692 of 2006
==============================================================
RAJODA
SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THR' SECRETARY & 6 - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KETAN D SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3,6 - 7.
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R)
for Respondent(s) : 4 -
5.
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 01/03/2006
ORAL
ORDER
It
appears that neither Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. nor
the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bavla are necessary
parties to the proceedings. Even otherwise also, they were not
parties in the proceedings before the State Government.
Mr.
Mehta is not in a position to show any justifiable reason for
impleading Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. or Agriculture
Produce Market Committee, Bavla as party respondents. He contended
that as the new society, which has been ordered to be registered
applied for membership, with a view to see that the order is
properly given effect to, both the Bank as well as the Market
Committee are impleaded as party respondents. I am afraid that such
can be said as a valid reason. If the order is passed by the Court
against registration, it operates to all concerned. No other reason
is brought to the notice of this Court for joining the aforesaid
Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. as well as the Market
Committee as party respondents. Hence the presence of both the
respondents are not required at this stage and therefore they shall
stand deleted.
Leave
to correct the name of respondent No. 5 as Bhikhabhai Fulabhai
Gohil.
Mr.
Rana states that as the name was not correctly mentioned, the notice
was not accepted by respondent No. 5, but now as the name is
correctly mentioned, he would appear for respondent No. 5.
Mr.
Rana, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 4
states that notice is served yesterday only and therefore, he seeks
time. Mr. Mehta is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid
aspect. Hence, time granted upto 8th March, 2006. To be
listed on admission board.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
*bjoy
Top