Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9795/2008 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9795 of 2008
=========================================
JYOTSNABEN
J PANSURIYA CHIEF ORGANIZER
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
NK PAHWA for M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for the
Petitioner
MR IM PANDYA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent Nos.1-3
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 30/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
is a matter wherein the three authorities have recorded concurrent
findings.
2. The
petitioner, one Smt.Jyotsnaben J.Pansuriya, describing herself as
Chief Organizer of Raidi Mahila Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandali Ltd.
(proposed), is before this Court being aggrieved by order passed by
the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajkot dated
06.10.2006, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C to the
petition.
The
District Registrar has recorded the necessary facts in para 1.
2.1 The
District Registrar received a proposal for registration of a
Cooperative Society by letter dated 25.05.2006. The Mandali
(Cooperative Society) which is already working in the village filed
its objections. The District Registrar therefore by letter dated
07.06.2006 asked the Chief Organizer (Mukhya Prayojak) to remain
present in the office of the District Registrar on 26.06.2006. The
Chief Organizer did not remain present as the Chief Organizer had
gone out of village and therefore, a request was made to give some
other date. The Chief Organizer was then given time from 26.06.2006
to 13.07.2006, meaning thereby on any day between 26.06.2006 to
13.07.2006, the Chief Organizer could have remained present before
the District Registrar and could have presented the case of the
petitioner society.
2.2 The
Chief Organizer did not remain present during the aforesaid period,
but then appeared before the District Registrar on 14.07.2006 and
represented to the effect that, there is distance of more than 1 km.
between the two societies, one already existing and working and the
other one which is proposed society and that the members are facing
difficulty in depositing their milk with the Society which is already
working.
2.3 The
Mandali which is already working filed its objections on various
dates which are mentioned in the order being 13.07.2006, 14.07.2006,
27.07.2006 and 07.08.2006. It was the case of the Mandali already
working that if a new Mandali is registered, it will adversely affect
the existing Mandali (Society). It was also requested by the Mandali
in existing that the proposed Mandali be closed/stopped with
immediate effect.
2.4 The
District Registrar, as he was duty bound to do, asked the proposed
society to submit, ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the existing
Mandali within 8 days’ by letter dated 30.08.2006. The proposed
society by letter dated 11.09.2006 asked for 15 days’ time to produce
‘No Objection Certificate’. The District Registrar, by letter dated
18.09.2006, granted 15 days’ time to submit No Objection Certificate.
This ‘No Objection Certificate’ was not submitted and thereafter,
the District Registrar, taking into consideration all relevant facts,
passed order dated 06.10.2006.
3. The
learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the
District Registrar has not registered the proposed society only on
the ground that the proposed society is not able to produce ‘No
Objection Certificate’ from the society which is working in the
village.
3.1 The
above representation is not borne out from the record of the case.
4. At
this juncture, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that
Section 4 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 provides
that only on three grounds, the District Registrar can refuse the
registration of a Cooperative Society. He submitted that Section 4
deals with this particular aspect of the matter. Section 4 reads as
under:-
?S4. Societies which
may be registered:-
A. society, which has
as its object the promotion of the economics interests or general
welfare of its members or of the public, in accordance with
cooperative principles, or a society established with the object of
facilitating the operations or any such society, may be registered
under this Act:??
4.1 What
follows ? proviso is important. The proviso reads as under:-
?SProvided that it
shall not registered if, (i) in the opinion of the Registrar, it is
economically unsound, or (ii) its registration may have an adverse
effect upon other society, or (iii) it is opposed to, or (iv) its
working is likely to be in contravention of public policy.??
5. In
the present case, the District Registrar has recorded two facts, one
the Chief Organizer did not remain present on both the occasions,
i.e. first on 26.06.2006 and second between 26.06.2006 to 13.07.2006.
The Chief Organizer then appeared before the District Registrar on
14.07.2006 and raised two contentions, one that the distance between
the two societies, one already existing and the other proposed
society, is 1 km. and that the members face difficulty in depositing
the milk. As against this, the society which is working raised
objections on various dates before the District Registrar and in
light of that, the District Registrar asked for a No Objection
Certificate of the working society so that if the same is granted,
the District Registrar may consider the case of the proposed society
for its registration.
6. The
order if read as a whole, it cannot be said that the District
Registrar refused registration only because the proposed society is
not able to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’.
7. The
matter was taken in appeal before the Additional Registrar
(Cooperative Societies), Gandhinagar and the Additional Registrar
approved the order passed by the District Registrar.
7.1 It
is a settled law that when an appellate authority is affirming or
approving the order of the authority, it is not required to reiterate
everything in its order still, the appellate authority has set out
guidelines prescribed by the Government of Gujarat by circular
No.NGHN-74-J-3951 dated 08.09.1989 and dated 07.11.1989. The
Additional Registrar, after taking into consideration the fact that
there is no case made out for registration of a new society and
taking into consideration the findings recorded by the District
Registrar that the registration of the proposed society is likely to
adversely affect the existing society, dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the order of the District Registrar.
8. The
matter did not rest there. The petitioner took up the matter before
the State Government by filing Revision Application before the Deputy
Secretary (Appeals) Agriculture and Cooperation Department, who too
dismissed the Revision Application by order dated 21.06.2008.
9. Thus,
there are concurrent findings recorded by three authorities still the
learned advocate tried to convince this Court that the matter
required interference at the hands of this Court.
10. The
Court finds no substance in the matter and hence, the same is
dismissed.
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)
*Shitole
Top