SHAMBHUBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Sompura, learned AGP, who is directed to appear on behalf of respondents No.1, 2, 3, and 4, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No.1, 2, 3, and 4. Mr.Pushpadatta, learned Counsel appearing by caveat on behalf of respondent No.5 waives service of notice of rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 7-10-2002 passed by the State Government in exercise of revisional power under Section 155 of the Act, whereby the order dated 15-6-2002 passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) as well as the order dated 15-5-2002 passed by the Assistant Registrar for the purpose of grant of registration to the petitioner Society are set aside and the revision is allowed.

(3.) Mr.H.P.Raval, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the contention that the right to form an association is a fundamental right and it can only be restricted as per the statutory provisions. He has submitted that there is one society, respondent No.5 herein, which is in existence since last 50 years and for the whole working area of the said society, there are 1290 khatedars. Since the said society is not effectively functioning, the members of the society decided to form a separate society. Mr.Raval submitted that in the working area, which is included the area of the petitioner society, out of the 1290 khatedars, 500 khatedars are falling within the working area of the petitioner society. Mr.Raval submitted that so far as respondent No.5 society is concerned, it is comprising of eight villages, whereas the petitioner society is for a particular village from amongst the said eight villages. Mr.Raval submitted that when the Assistant Registrar formed an opinion that it is a fit case for granting registration and the same is also confirmed by he Additional Registrar in appeal, subject to the modification as mentioned in the order, the State Government could not have reversed the findings. Mr.Raval also submitted that the State Government, while exercising the revisional power, has not taken into consideration, that after registration was granted to the petitioner society, it has functioned until the order passed by the State Government and as a result thereof it has enrolled 165 members and it has collected deposits and it has also granted loans to its members by getting loan from the Sabarkantha District Cooperative Bank. He submitted that if the registration is cancelled, it may result into affecting the rights and liabilities and complication for the recovery also. Mr.Raval submitted that as a matter of fact, there cannot be a monopoly of respondent No.5 society to continue to operate in the working area. When the members of the petitioner society has decided to form an association, the same cannot be foreclosed by the State Government in an cursory manner. He submitted that the order passed by the State Government is without proper reason and without proper material on record the State Government has upset the findings and hence the order passed by the State Government deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Raval further submitted that out of 1290 khatedars falling in the working area of respondent No.5 society, the khatedars staying in working area of petitioner society society are 500 in all, and out of the said 500, khatedars residing in the working area, the member of the respondent No.5 society are only 50. Therefore, he submitted that this shows that respondent No.5 is not rendering good service in the working area, which made the members of the petitioner society to form a separate society.