SCA/4719/1991 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4719 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SAURASHTRA CEMENT CONSUMER CO.OP. SOCIETY - Petitioner(s) Versus ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PM THAKKAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. MR ND NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 07/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The short facts of the case appear to be that the application was made for registration of the petitioner Society, which SCA/4719/1991 2/3 JUDGMENT ultimately came to be granted by the Assistant District Registrar and the registration certificate was issued on 21.9.1989. It appears that thereafter one another Cooperative Society namely; Respondent No.4 herein preferred Appeal under Section 153 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) being Appeal No.100/1990 before the Additional Registrar (Appeals). The Additional Registrar (Appeals) in the Appeal found that there is no proper inquiry and, therefore, the matter has been remanded to the District Registrar vide order dated 29.6.1990 and it is under these circumstances, the present petition. 2. During the course of the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is settled between the objector Society – respondent No.4 herein and the petitioner and, therefore, this Court may dispose of the matter accordingly. 3. In my view, the Registrar has exercised the power and has remanded the matter to the Assistant District Registrar. If the matter is genuinely settled, the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 may lead evidence for such purpose and appropriate decision may be taken. However, in view of the aforesaid settlement, the order passed by the Additional District Registrar does not deserve to be interfered with, but suffice it to state that if the settlement takes place, the same SCA/4719/1991 3/3 JUDGMENT shall also be examined by the Assistant District Registrar, who is to rehear the matter pursuant to the order of remand. 4. Hence, subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. I.R., if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. 7.5.2008 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod