SCA/10789/2008 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10789 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= S P OZA - Petitioner(s) Versus SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AD DESAI for Petitioner(s) : 1,LOPA M BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR AR THACKER for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. MR VINAY PANDYA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 26/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Thacker learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule for respondent No. 1 and Mr. SCA/10789/2008 2/6 JUDGMENT Pandya learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today. 3. The only question to be considered is whether the exercise of the discretion by Registrar for permitting joining the petitioner as party in the proceedings of Revision Application No. 81 of 2006 was required to be interfered with by the State Government in revisional jurisdiction under Section 155 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act or not. 4. The short facts of the case appear to be that the revision was preferred by the Society against the decision of the District Registrar and in the said revision, two members of the Society namely; I.P. Jani and S.P. Oza wanted to get themselves impleaded as party since they wanted to produce certain records, which can be helpful to the Additional Registrar (Appeals) for adjudication of the matter. The Registrar found that their presence would be helpful and throw light on the issue and, therefore, the SCA/10789/2008 3/6 JUDGMENT discretion was exercised by him, permitting the aforesaid two persons as party respondents. The matter was carried in revision by the Society before the State Government and the State Government ultimately allowed the revision on the ground that if the majority has taken the decision, the joining of two persons as individual members is not required and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition. 5. Ms.Lopa Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the hearing, has declared that as one of the persons expired, his name may be deleted. 6. In my view, such aspects can be considered at the later stage when the Registrar is to hear the revision. 7. It appears that allowing the persons to be impleaded as party respondents, when there is larger issue pertaining to the resolution of the Society, would essentially a matter in the domain of the discretion of the authority, who may find the presence of such parties necessary SCA/10789/2008 4/6 JUDGMENT for adjudication of the matter. Perusal of the order of the Additional Registrar (Appeals) shows that the discretion was properly exercised and there is no perversity in exercise of the discretion, nor can it be said that there is an error apparent on the face of record committed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals). Under these circumstances, it was not required for the State Government in revisional jurisdiction to examine the merits of the matter and to exclude the consideration of the certain materials, which were in possession of the members, who were permitted to be impleaded as parties. 8. Mr.Thacker, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 Society, during the course of hearing, has not been able to show any prejudice to the Society, if such members are permitted to be impleaded as party, so as to assist the cause for proper adjudication of the matter. 9. In normal circumstances, when the discretion has been properly exercised by the appellate/revisional authority, then it may not attract the power of another higher revisional SCA/10789/2008 5/6 JUDGMENT authority, unless such discretion found to be exercised with perversity or there is any error apparent on the face of record. Nothing has come out to that extent from the order of the Additioinal Registrar (Appeals). Therefore, the exercise of the power by the State Government was not called for. Hence, it may be said that the State Government by interfering with such discretionary order of the Additional Registrar (Appeals) has exceeded the jurisdiction. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10.In view of the above, the impugned order of the State Government dated 10.7.2008 is quashed and set aside. It is further observed that if any of the members has already expired, it would be fore the other party to make a declaration before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) in the proceedings as permissible in law. 11.The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. SCA/10789/2008 6/6 JUDGMENT 26.9.2008 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod