Shree Kundla Taluk Sahkari Karid Vechan Sangh Sahkari Bhavan and Others vs State of Gujarat and Another

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jirga Jhaveri waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Heard learned advocates for the parties. The Petitioners are the Shree Kundla Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh - the co-operative society and the office bearers of the managing committee has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the notice dated 13.01.2011 issued by Respondent No. 2 in exercise of power u/s 81 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (herein after referred as ''the Act'', for the sake of brevity) on the ground that the said notice is absolutely unjust and improper and issued without considering the facts, which would go to show that the said notice was uncalled, unjust and require to be quashed.

Before making elaborate submissions to the merits of the matter, learned advocate for the Petitioners placed on record the declaration of results of election by the Election Officer vide communication dated 15.04.2011. Learned advocate for the Petitioners submitted that in view of this, now the notice impugned may not survive as the new committee that would be formed herein after pursuant to the said election cannot be called upon to answer the notice. The learned advocate for the Petitioners relied upon the judgment in case of Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Raiyani and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, submitted that the notice impugned in this petition would not now survive. Learned advocate for the Petitioners has relied upon the observations of this Court in Para Nos. 4 and 9 of the said judgment and contended that the reelection and reappointment of the same of the old committee, formed pursuant to the election would also not invest Respondent No. 2 with right to continue notice as the notice is issued to the managing committee, then existed and now which is going to be replaced by new committee as a collective body.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the State submitted that the petition is prematurely filed and hence the same is required to be dismissed in limine. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jhaveri submitted that in case if the Court is inclined to dispose of this matter only on account of declaration of results and in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in case of Pravinbhai Mohanbhia Raiyani v. State of Gujarat, then disposal of this matter would not be construed in way of the Competent Authority in taking appropriate steps under the relevant provision of the law.

This Court is of the view that as the Court has not gone into the merits of the allegation made in the notice nor the Court has examined merits of the contentions raised by learned advocate for the Petitioners, challenging the notice in this petition and the Court is inclined to dispose of the matter in light of the ratio laid down by this Court in case of Pravinbhai Mohanbhia Raiyani v. State of Gujarat that now new elected body would come into place of the body against which notice is issued. Liberty would be required to be reserved to the Authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings, if permitted by law, against the out going members and disposal of this petition would not stand in any way in taking decision on merits in respect of contentions made by both the parties. It would be open for the Petitioners to resist any action in accordance with law. With these observations, the impugned show-cause notice is quashed and set aside as having not been effective against the new body that formed. The petition is thus, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.