{"id":218165,"date":"2011-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011"},"modified":"2016-09-24T09:53:43","modified_gmt":"2016-09-24T04:23:43","slug":"chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: K.M.Mehta,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/17210\/2005\t 20\/ 20\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 17210 of 2005\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA\n \n \n========================================== \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -\n\t\t\tYes.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ? - Yes.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? - No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ? - No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ? - No. \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n==========================================\n\n \n\nCHANASMA\nTALUKA SAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH LTD - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n==========================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHARIN P RAVAL for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nGOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. \nMR BS PATEL for Respondent(s) : 5, \nMRS\nRANJAN B PATEL for Respondent(s) :\n5, \n==================================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/08\/2005 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
 Learned AGP waives rule on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 to 4.
\nMr.B.S.Patel, learned Advocate waives Rule on behalf of Respondent
\nno.5.\n<\/p>\n
Chanasma
\n\tTaluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd., petitioner has filed this
\n\tpetition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for
\n\twrit of certiorari and\/or any other appropriate writ,
\n\torder or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting
\n\taside the impugned order dated 16\/6\/2005, passed by the Additional
\n\tRegistrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, State of Gujarat in
\n\tAppeal\/Application No.60 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tMr.Harin Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner and
\n\tMr.B.S.Patel, learned advocate on behalf of respondent no.5 and
\n\tMr.M.A.Patel, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfacts giving rise are as under:\n<\/p>\n
3.1
\n\tThe petitioner is a registered cooperative society duly registered
\n\tunder the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
3.2
\n\tIt is the case of the petitioner that petitioner society incurred
\n\tloss during the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.  Therefore,
\n\tpetitioner society was ordered to be taken in liquidation under
\n\tSection 107 of the Cooperative Societies
\n\tAct which provides winding up of the cooperative society.\n<\/p>\n
3.3
\n\tAfter some time passed, position of the
\n\tpetitioner society improved and therefore, petitioner society has
\n\tmade an application on 31\/3\/2005 for reconstruction of the
\n\tpetitioner society, to the District Registrar, Cooperative
\n\tSocieties. The Cooperation Officer (Liquidation) of the office
\n\tof the District Registrar issued an agenda on 21\/4\/2005 for the
\n\tpurpose of holding a special general meeting.  Thereafter, on
\n\t30\/4\/2005, meeting of the petitioner
\n\tsociety has held wherein it was decided to reconstruct the
\n\tpetitioner society.\n<\/p>\n
3.4
\n\tThe District Registrar issued a notice on
\n\t3\/5\/2005 calling for suggestions and objections, if any against the
\n\tpropose reconstruction of the petitioner society.\n<\/p>\n
3.5
\n\tIt is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said notice,
\n\tnobody objected to the revival of the society.\n<\/p>\n
3.6
\n\tThe District Registrar thereafter, after going through the proposal
\n\tof 3\/5\/2005 for revival of the society, the resolution of the
\n\tsociety dated 30\/4\/2004 and also Section 19 of the Act which
\n\tprovides reconstruction of the society was pleased to pass an order
\n\ton 16\/5\/2005 about reconstruction of the society. The authority
\n\tobserved that all members have trust in the new management of
\n\tsociety. The Government has also desire to open such society at
\n\tTaluka level and if the said society is opened, that will benefit
\n\tthe agriculturists of Taluka and all members of the society
\n\tregarding carrying on business of fertilizers,
\n\tother medicines, pesticides in this behalf and even the past debt
\n\tcan also be repaid in this behalf. All members have shown their
\n\tinterest in opening of such a society. The order of reconstruction
\n\tpassed is at page 62 of the paper book. Pursuant to that, the Deputy
\n\tAgriculture Director has issued  a license
\n\tin favour of the society on 1\/6\/2005.  The Deputy Agriculture
\n\tDirector has also registered the society from 1\/6\/2005 to 31\/5\/2008
\n\tto carry on business in fertilizers and
\n\tpesticides.  The said orders are produced by the petitioner in this
\n\tbehalf.  The Deputy Agriculture Director also passed further order
\n\tby registering the society for business in wholesale which is at
\n\tpage 69.  The meeting of the said society also held on 26\/5\/2005 and
\n\tthe minutes of the said meeting has been
\n\talso put on record at page 71 of the petition.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tappears that one Ganget Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Mu.:Ganget,
\n\tTa.:Chanasma, Patan, respondent no.5 in petition, filed an appeal
\n\tbefore Additional Registrar (Appeals) challenging the order of
\n\treconstruction of the petitioner society dated 16\/5\/2005 passed by
\n\tthe District Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Additional
\n\tRegistrar (Appeals) passed an order on 31\/5\/2005 issuing notice and
\n\tkept hearing on 8\/6\/2005. In the said application, respondent no.5
\n\tonly joined District Registrar and did not join petitioner as a
\n\tparty.\n<\/p>\n
4.1
\n\tIn the appeal proceeding, being Appeal No.60 of 2005, one
\n\tMr.Pravinbhai M.Patel, the applicant\/petitioner has filed
\n\tapplication on 8\/6\/2005 to join him as a party to the appeal and
\n\talso pass any other order in this behalf.  Said Application is at
\n\tpage 79 of the petition.\n<\/p>\n
4.2
\n\tThe Additional Registrar (Appeals), Gandhinagar was pleased to pass
\n\torder on 16\/6\/2005.  In the said
\n\tproceeding, it was contended that against
\n\tthe order of the Registrar dated 16\/5\/2005, the respondent no.5
\n\tfiled appeal, when the order of the District Registrar has been
\n\tchallenged by the respondent no.5, therefore, petitioner society is
\n\ta necessary and proper party in this behalf and they should be
\n\tjoined as a party.  The appellate authority passed an order that as
\n\tit is not deciding appeal but an interim
\n\torder,  the application for joining petitioner as a party is not
\n\tnecessary to be allowed at this stage and once again remanded the
\n\tmatter to the District Registrar.  The appellate authority also
\n\t cancelled the order dated 16\/5\/2005 granting registration to the
\n\tpetitioner society (viz. without hearing the petitioner).\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Harin
\n\tRaval, learned advocate for the petitioner stated that aforesaid
\n\torder of the Additional Registrar (Appeals) is nullity in eye of law
\n\tbecause they have already filed application for joining party.  The
\n\tsaid application has not been decided on one hand and on the other
\n\thand, it is ordered for cancellation of order of reconstruction.  So
\n\tin eye of law, the authority has passed the order without hearing
\n\tthe petitioner for reconstructing the society.  The said order is
\n\tillegal, without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of the law and
\n\tliable to be set aside as now it is well settled by a catena of the
\n\tdecision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble High Court that
\n\tif you want to pass any order, then pass the order after hearing the
\n\tparties. The basic principle of Rules of Natural Justice has been
\n\tignored by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) and thereafter he
\n\tremanded the order.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tmay be noted that a Revision Application has also been filed by the
\n\tpetitioner society somewhere in June, 2005.  The Revisional
\n\tAuthority, Joint Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperative Department
\n\trejected the said application of the petitioner. It is observed
\n\ttherein that when the Additional Registrar has passed an order, he
\n\thas passed the order after going through the records and District
\n\tRegistrar has to pass the order after going through the merits of
\n\tthe matter.  As it is interim order, there is no question of
\n\tgranting any injunction order in this behalf.  The Revisional
\n\tAuthority also did not address upon the basic question as to when
\n\tthe petitioner’s application has not been considered and still the
\n\tauthority has set aside the order, so the question is whether order
\n\tof the authority is following rules of natural justice or not and
\n\twhether the authority passed order without hearing the other side
\n\thas not been at all considered by the Revisional Authority.  The
\n\tauthority has passed a cryptic order
\n\twithout application of mind and therefore, Mr.Raval, learned
\n\tadvocate states that that order also must be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.B.S.Patel,
\n\tlearned advocate for the respondent has tried to support the order
\n\tand submitted that this Court may not interfere with the said order
\n\tin exercise of power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
\n\tof India.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.B.S.Patel,
\n\tlearned advocate for the respondent also relied upon the affidavit
\n\tin reply of respondent no.5 dated
\n\t12\/8\/2005.  It was only stated that the competent authority can
\n\trefuse the stay, but for that reasons are required to be assigned
\n\tand in the present case, impugned order, reasons have already been
\n\tassigned and therefore petition is not entertained in this behalf.
\n\tAs regards order passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals),
\n\tCooperative Society, it has been stated that after hearing all the
\n\tparties concerned including the petitioner, it was the order of
\n\tremand and cannot be said to be a judicial order which cannot be
\n\ttaken into revision and the said order cannot be a subject matter of
\n\tchallenge as per the law settled by the Hon’ble Court in the case
\n\treported in 1997 (2) GCD 314 (Nadiad Taluka Kharid Vechan Sangh
\n\tLimited vs. State of Gujarat and others) and therefore this Court
\n\tmay not interfere at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
\tAdmittedly as the petitioner society has not started functioning and
\n\ttherefore, the authority could not pass an order of review.  Further
\n\tthe authority has not been stated as to
\n\twhether the petitioner was heard or not
\n\tbefore the order of the cancellation of the registration or not.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt is very sorry to observe that the authority being quasi
\n\tjudicial authority to whom power has been vested ignores the basic
\n\tprinciples of law viz. Rules of Natural Justice and decisions
\n\trendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court.
\n\tThe authorities ought not to have passed order without joining them
\n\tas a party and without hearing the party. A basic principles and
\n\trules of natural justice has been violated.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Raval,
\n\tlearned advocate has relied upon several judgments in this
\n\tbehalf to show that if principle of natural justice are violated,
\n\tthe order become nullity and do not
\n\texisting in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave considered the facts and circumstances from the facts, which I
\n\thave stated above.   Initially respondent no.5 has filed application
\n\tfor quashing and setting aside the order of Society reconstructing.
\n\tHe did not make petitioner as a party.  When petitioner filed an
\n\tapplication for joining in the said proceedings, the Additional
\n\tRegistrar (Appeals) did not decide application,
\n\thowever, cancel the order dated 16\/5\/2005
\n\tgranting registration to the petitioner obviously without hearing
\n\tthe petition.  If the revisional authority has confirmed the order
\n\tand remanded the matter without applying mind as to whether there is
\n\ta violation of rules of natural justice or not.\n<\/p>\n
11.1
\n\tNow it is well settled that if rules of natural justice are
\n\tviolated, the order become nullity in the eye of law.  An order is
\n\tnull and void if the statute clothing the
\n\tadministrative tribunal with power conditions it with the obligation
\n\tto hear expressly or by implication.\n<\/p>\n
\t(Read – Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nawabkhan
\n\tvs. the State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1471, particularly
\n\tpara 20 at page 1480.) <\/p>\n
11.2
\n\tIn a given case when the principle of natural justice are stated to
\n\thave been violated it is open to the Appellate Authority in
\n\tappropriate cases to set aside the order and require the assessing
\n\tofficer to decide the case de novo.   (Re. ?  Judgment of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax and
\n\tothers vs. Subhash & Co.,<\/a> reported in (2003) 3 SCC 454,
\n\tparticularly para 22 (iv) at page 464).\n<\/p>\n
11.3
\n\t?SConcept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change
\n\tin recent years.  Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied
\n\talways expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder.  They
\n\tmay be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a
\n\tstatute.  What particular rule of natural
\n\tjustice should be implied and what its context should be in a given
\n\tcase must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of
\n\tthat case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry
\n\tis held.??  Re – Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
\n\tof Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das,<\/a> reported in AIR 2003 2041,
\n\tparticularly para 19.\n<\/p>\n
11.4
\n\t?SWhenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of
\n\tprinciples of natural justice, there is no final decision of the
\n\tcase and fresh proceedings are left upon.  All that is done is to
\n\tvacate the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but the
\n\tproceedings are not terminated.?? – Re – Judgment of the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das,<\/a> reported
\n\tin AIR 2003 2041, particularly para 21.\n<\/p>\n
11.5
\n\tI have considered the Judgment of the High Court in the case of
\n\tKanubhai C. Patel vs. Anandiben Patel,<\/a> reported in 2004 (3) GLH 113,
\n\twhere this Court has considered various principle of natural justice
\n\tfrom various authorities.  Please see paras 6.1(a), 6.1(b), 6.1(c),
\n\t6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tmay be noted that Prof.C.K.Thakkar, now the Judge of the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court of India in his book ?SLaw of Writs??, 5th
\n\tEdition, page 271, observed that ?SSo far as India is concerned, it
\n\tis fairy well settled and courts have consistently taken the view
\n\tthat whenever there is violation of any rule of natural justice, the
\n\torder is null and void.?? and on page 272 also, observed that ?SOne
\n\tthing, however, must be noted.  Even if the order passed by an
\n\tauthority or officer is ultra vires, against the principles of
\n\tnatural justice and therefore, null and void,
\n\tit remains operative unless and until it is declared to be so by a
\n\tcompetent court.  Consequent upon such declaration, it automatically
\n\tcollapses and it need not be quashed and
\n\tset aside.??\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tmay be noted that Dr.I.P.Missy, in his book ?SAdministrative Law ??,
\n\t6th Edition, page 182, observed that ?SThe principle of
\n\taudi alteram partem is the basic concept of the principle of natural
\n\tjustice.  The omnipotency inherent in the doctrine is that no one
\n\tshould be condemned unheard.  In the field of administrative action,
\n\tthis principle has been applied to ensure fair play and justice to
\n\taffected persons.??\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tmay be noted that Dr.S.P.Sathe, in his book ?SAdministrative Law ??,
\n\t7th Edition, page 248, observed that ?SAn administrative
\n\taction, which is taken in violation of the rules of natural justice,
\n\tsuch as fair hearing, is an action without jurisdiction.  It is an
\n\tultra vires act and therefore, has to be nullity.  The rules of
\n\tnatural justice are open-textured, and they are bound to acquire new
\n\tdimensions as well as new meanings as vistas of the due process of
\n\tlaw and human rights widen.??\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave also considered Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of
\n\tRavi S.Naik vs. Union of India and others<\/a>, reported in 1994 Supp.(2)
\n\tSCC 641, particularly para 20 at page 653, ?SPrinciples of natural
\n\tjustice have an important place in modern Administrative Law. They
\n\thave been defined to mean ?Sfair play in action??. (See:Maneeka
\n\tGandhi v. Union of India, Bhagwati, J.) As laid down by this Court:
\n\t?SThey constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having
\n\ttheir roots in the innate sense of man for fair play and justice
\n\twhich is not the preserve of any particular race or contrary
\n\tbut is shared in common by all men?? (Union of India v. Tulsiram
\n\tPatel).  An<\/a> order of an authority exercising judicial or
\n\tquasi-judicial functions passed in violation of the principles of
\n\tnatural justice is procedurally ultra vires and, therefore, suffers
\n\tfrom a jurisdictional error??.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave considered the facts and circumstances
\n\tof the case.  In this case, admittedly the District Registrar has
\n\tpassed an order on 16\/5\/2005 about the reconstruction of the
\n\tauthority and society started functioning in this behalf.  The said
\n\taction of reconstruction was challenged by one Ganget Seva Sahakari
\n\tMandali Ltd., respondent no.5 herein by filing appeal before the
\n\tDistrict Registrar (Appeals).  In the said proceedings, an
\n\tAdditional Registrar (Appeals) issued notice.  However, it may be
\n\tnoted that the said appeal filed by respondent no.5, only District
\n\tRegistrar was joined as a respondent and petitioner society was not
\n\tjoined as a party.  When the applicant\/petitioner filed an
\n\tapplication on 8\/6\/2005 to join him as a party in appeal and also
\n\tpassed an order in this behalf, the Additional Registrar (Appeals)
\n\tdid not decide the application of the petitioner to join as a party,
\n\tremanded the matter to the District Registrar and cancell the order
\n\tdated 16\/5\/2005, granting the registration to the petitioner
\n\tsociety.  Thus, the obvious fact is that the authority cancell the
\n\torder or registration of petitioner society without hearing in this
\n\tbehalf because the authority did not decide the application for
\n\tjoining him as a party so the proceedings by the appellate authority
\n\tby which it cancell the registration, the society was admittedly not
\n\theard.  Authority has rejected the Revision Application without
\n\tassigning any reasons.  Revisional
\n\tAuthority stated that the District Registrar has to hear the matter
\n\tand pass the order and therefore, after going through the same,
\n\tremanded the matter to the District Registrar.  The District
\n\tRegistrar also did not address as far as the question as to whether
\n\tthe petitioner should be a party before the proceedings or not.
\n\tTherefore, question that whether the petitioner should be necessary
\n\tparty before the order is quashed, has not been considered by the
\n\trevisional authority.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave gone through the contentions of both the learned advocates for
\n\tthe petitioner and respondent in this behalf.  Mr.Patel’s contention
\n\tthat authority has only rejected the stay and only remanded the
\n\tmatter, this Court may not interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of
\n\tthe Constitution of India.  However, unfortunately, in this case
\n\tinitially when the respondent no.5 has filed an application
\n\tchallenging the order of District Registrar, the authority has
\n\tpassed interim relief on 31\/5\/2005 staying the order but authority
\n\tdid not address itself as to whether the petitioner society is party
\n\tbefore it or not.  It was their duty to point out parties and make
\n\tsociety as a party before passing any adverse order against the
\n\tpetitioner society.\n<\/p>\n
17.1
\n\tIn my view, the District Registrar failed and neglect in his duty
\n\tbefore passing ex parte interim order as he passed the order without
\n\tjoining the petitioner as a party respondent and without hearing
\n\thim.  Still worst when the application filed for joining party,
\n\t3.1\/2 pages order has been passed without deciding that application
\n\tof the petitioner for impleading it to be joined as party
\n\trespondent, straight way allowed the appeal of the private
\n\trespondent no.5 and set aside the order of the reconstruction of the
\n\tpetitioner dated 16\/5\/2005 passed by the District Registrar,
\n\tCooperative Societies.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis settled law that ?SAudi alteram paterm The Audi alteram partem
\n\trule ensures that no one is condemned unheard.  It is the first
\n\tprinciple of civilized jurisprudence that
\n\ta person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose
\n\tright or interest is being affected, be given a reasonable
\n\topportunity to defend himself.  Hearing means a fair hearing.  This
\n\tinvolves components, such as: (1) Notice; (2) an opportunity to the
\n\tconcerned party to present his case; and (3) legal representation.
\n\t Re ?  Halsbury’s Laws of India, para 005.054 at page 119-120.  It
\n\tis also settled that a quasi judicial order made without following
\n\tnatural justice is void and null. The non observation of natural
\n\tjustice is itself a prejudiced to any
\n\tindividual and proof of prejudice, independent of proof of denial of
\n\tnatural justice, is not necessary. In cases of absence of notice
\n\tor absence of hearing, the order passed is invalid or a nullity.  I
\n\thave also referred to the judgment in the case of Navi Bhagat vs.
\n\tthe State of Bihar, reported in 1990 (2) SCC 48.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tregards principles of natural justice is concerned, once the
\n\tauthority passed an order without giving an opportunity of being
\n\theard to the concerned person, then order is become nullity in eye
\n\tof law.  In this behalf I have considered various judgments of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  1) in the Case of Nawabkhan v. the State of
\n\tGujarat, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1471, 2) in the case of
\n\tCommissioner of Sales Tax and others
\n\tv. Subhash & Co.<\/a> reported in (2003) 3 SCC 454, and 3) in the
\n\tcase of Canara Bank v. Debasis Das,<\/a> reported in 2003 AIR 2041 and
\n\talso judgment of this Court  in the case of Kanubhai v. Anandiben
\n\tPatel,<\/a> reported in 2004 (3) GLH 113 and also various books namely
\n\t?SWrit of Law?? of Justice C.K.Thakkar and  ?SAdministrative Law??
\n\tof Dr.S.P.Sathe and also another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
\n\tin the case of Ravi S.Naik v. Union of India and others<\/a>, reported in
\n\t1994 Supp.(2) SCC 641.  In view of these the authorities, it is
\n\tcrystal clear that when the authority pass
\n\tan order particularly when registration is already there and cancell
\n\tthe same if the said order is passed without given an opportunity of
\n\tbeing heard, the order as if does not existing and therefore the
\n\tpetition is allowed.  In view of the same, the order dated 16\/6\/2005
\n\tpassed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) by which he has
\n\tcancelled the order of the District Registrar dated 16\/5\/2005 of
\n\tregistering the petitioner society without hearing the petitioner is
\n\tquashed and set aside as well as the order passed by the Special
\n\tSecretary, Agriculture and Cooperative Department dated 5\/8\/2005
\n\talso quashed and set aside because the
\n\tauthority has not considered the principle of natural justice in
\n\tthis behalf.  This Court hopes and trusts that in subsequent
\n\tproceedings, authority consider this principles before passing any
\n\torder and they will atleast give an
\n\topportunity of being heard to the
\n\tconcerned petitioner in this behalf.  In view of the same, no order
\n\tas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tPetition
\nis allowed with no order as to costs.  Rule is made absolute to this
\nextent.\n<\/p>\n
(K.M.MEHTA,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
(ila)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011 Author: K.M.Mehta,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/17210\/2005 20\/ 20 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17210 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA ========================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-218165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-24T04:23:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T04:23:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3457,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T04:23:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-24T04:23:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T04:23:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011"},"wordCount":3457,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011","name":"Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T04:23:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanasma-vs-state-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chanasma vs State on 18 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218165","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=218165"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218165\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}