1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for respondentState and learned advocate Mr. Jinesh H. Kapadia for respondent Nos. 8 to 11.

2. By these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Revisional Authority in a suo motu revision under section 155 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [for short ‘ the,1961] cancelling the registration of the petitioners-Societies.

3. As the issues arising in all the three petitions are identical, the same are heard and being disposed of by this common order. Special Civil Application No. 6806 of 2022 is treated as the lead case.

3.1 The petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the provisions of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.

3.2 The petitioner submitted a proposal to register the petitioner society before the District Panchayat, Banaskantha.

3.3 Respondent no.5 in its meeting dated 19th January, 2017 vide resolution NO. 19/30 unanimously resolved to register the petitionersociety and accordingly registration certificate came to be issued to the petitioner on 20th January, 2017.

3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of registration of the petitionersociety, the existing society namely Magarwada Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited had submitted no objection to the registration of the petitioner society.

3.5 Against the aforesaid registration of the petitioner-society, respondent no.4 vide proposal dated 14th February, 2017 addressed to respondent no.l3 directed to file suo motu revision application against the registration of the petitioner-society and similarly situated societies. On the basis of aforesaid proposal, respondent no.3 filed Suo Motu Revision Application No.80/2017 before respondent no.2 in which notice came to be issued on 20th May, 2017.

3.6 In response to the said notice, District Panchayat, Palanpur submitted its remarks to the respondent no.2 stating that the petitioner has submitted its no objection to the registration of the petitioner society. Taluka Development Officer has also given certificate that members of the newly registered society are not defaulters of existing society and existing society has no objection against the registration of the petitioner society.

3.7 The suo motu revision application remained pending for considerable long period of time. The petitioner-society has become member of Banaskantha District Central Cooperative Bank Limited-respondent No.7 and has been dispensing agricultural credit to its members.

3.8 Petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and filed its written submissions opposing the suo motu revision application.

3.9 During the pendency of the revision application respondent Nos. 8 to 11 filed an application on 08.10.2021 for being impleaded as party respondents in suo motu revision application.

3.10 Petitioner filed reply to the said application and opposed the said application.

3.11 Respondent No.2 however, vide order dated 16.11.2021 allowed the application for joining party.

3.12 The petitioner filed Revision Application No. 23 of 2022 challenging the said order in which notice is issued by the Revisional Authority.

3.13 It is the case of the petitioner that elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Vadgam were declared on 14.03.2022 and petitioner being Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area is eligible to be included in the voters’ list for the elections of Market Committee.

3.14 Respondent No.2-Additional Registrar vide impugned order dated 19.03.2022 allowed the suo motu revision application and set aside the registration of the petitioner-Society.

3.15 The petitioner has therefore, preferred this petition challenging the impugned orders.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai submitted that the respondent-authorities have passed contradictory orders in similar facts. It was pointed out that the respondent-Revisional Authority by order dated 22.03.2022 in case of one Varsada Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited in similar facts partly allowed the revision by directing the District Registrar, Palanpur, to take necessary action under sections 84, 87 and 88 of the Act, 1961, by conducting inspection and inquiry and thereafter take necessary action under the provisions of sections 4 and 107 of the Act, 1961. It was submitted that on the similar facts of the case, the same authority has cancelled the registration of the petitioners-societies.

4.1 It was submitted that the Revisional Authority after considering the submissions made by the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 8 to 11 has taken a contradictory decision by cancelling the registration relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Vachhol Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat and ors in Special Civil Application No. 15560 of 2003 without adjudicating as to how the registration of the petitionersSocieties would adversely affect the other existing societies.

4.2 It was further submitted that the Revisional Authority could have arrived at impugned decision only after making proper inquiry under sections 84, 87 and 88 of the Act, 1961 as it is done in case of similarly situated society.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Kapadia submitted that considering the decision of this Court in case of Vachhol Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat and ors (supra) once the provisions of section 4 is violated as the mandatory notice of 10 days was not issued by the Registrar for making an application, on receipt of application for registration, the registration of the petitioner-society is rightly cancelled by the Revisional Authority.

5.1 It was further submitted that as the facts of the case of the petitioners are different than that of the case of Varsada Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, the authorities have rightly directed to hold the inquiry under sections 84, 87 and 88 of the Act, 1961, whereas in the facts of the case of the petitioners, the Revisional Authority has come to the conclusion that as the mandatory provision of section 4 of the Act, 1961 is violated, the registration is required to be cancelled. It was therefore submitted that as the ingredients of section 4 of the Act, 1961 are not complied with the Revisional Authority has rightly cancelled the registration of the petitionersSocieties.

6. Learned AGP Mr. Jayswal submitted that the Revisional Authority has passed the impugned orders contrary to the similar facts in case of Varsada Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited. It was submitted that the impugned orders may be modified in line with the orders passed in the said society.

7. In view of the above submissions, the impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authority are modified as per the order passed in case of Varsada Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited.

8. The contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Kapadia appearing for respondent Nos. 8 to 11 is concerned that in view of the decision in case of Vachhol Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat and ors (supra), the provisions of section 4 is required to be considered as per the directions given by this Court and the District Registrar was required to issue notice to the existing society to raise objections and in the facts of the case such notice was not issued and therefore the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. However, in the facts of the case the petitioners-societies have been registered in the year 2017 and thereafter, suo motu proceedings were initiated. It is also emerges from the facts on the record that though suo motu revision is registered in the year 2017 itself, the same is disposed of in the year 2022 without considering the business of the petitioners-societies conducted during the three years.

9. The Revisional Authority has only considered that the other co-operative societies with similar objects are functioning in the same area and no NOC is obtained from such societies. However, similar facts were also in existence as far as the case of Varsada Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, in which the contradictory view is taken by the same authority after three days of passing of the impugned orders by directing the District Registrar to conduct inquiry/inspection under sections 84, 87 and 88 of the Act, 1961 to ascertain as to whether such societies are functioning or not. The Revisional Authority ought to have passed similar order in the facts of the present case also and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authorities are required to be modified. The petitions are accordingly partly allowed. Impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authority are modified to the extent that instead of cancellation of the registration issued to the petitioners-Societies, the District Registrar is modified by directing the District Registrar held inquiry under sections 84 87 and 88 of the Act, 1961 and thereafter initiate appropriate proceedings upon receipt of such report, if required under section 107 read with section 20 of the Act, 1961.

10. With the aforesaid directions, these petitions are disposed of.

11. In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioners are permitted to make an application before the appropriate authority to include their in the voters’ list which will be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. Direct service is permitted.