Siddhpur Taluka Co-Operative ... vs Additional Registrar (Appeals)
2021 Latest Caselaw 1938 Guj

            C/SCA/14668/2020                            CAVJUDGMENT




                 IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD

                  R/SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 14668of 2020
                                   With
                  R/SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 15372of 2020

FORAPPROVALANDSIGNATURE:


HONOURABLEMR. JUSTICEBIRENVAISHNAV

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                     NO

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question NO

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== SIDDHPURTALUKASAHAKARIKHARIDVECHANSANGHLIMITED Versus DISTRICTCOLLECTOR ========================================================== Appearance:

MRPK JANI, SENIORADVOCATEWITHMRSHIVANGP JANI(8285)for the Petitioner(s)No. 1,2 MS MANISHALAVKUMARSHAH,GOVERNMENTPLEADERWITHMS AISHVARYA GUPTA,AGPfor the Respondent(s)No. 1,2,3 MRCHIRAGB PATEL(3679)for the Respondent(s)No. 4,5 ==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

Date: 10/02/2021

CAVJUDGMENT

1. In Special Civil Application No. 14668 of 2020 filed under

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayers of the petitioner are to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector and Election Officer and the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Registrar, Nominees Court below Ex. 6 in Lavad Case No. 158 of 2020 and also to direct the respondents no. 1 and 2 to start the election process for holding the election of petitioner no. 1 - Siddhpur Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited from the stage where it was postponed.

1.1 Special Civil Application No. 15372 of 2020 is filed challenging the order dated 13.11.2020 passed in Misc. Application No. 19 of 2020 by the respondent no. 1 in Regular Appeal No. 56 of 2020 by which the Additional Registrar, Appeals has condoned the delay of 750 days in an application for condonation of delay filed by respondents no. 3 and 4 of the present petition who are the same respondents of the Lavad Suit No. 158 of 2020 - respondents no. 4 and 5 of Special Civil Application No. 14668 of 2020.

2. Facts in brief are as under (As recorded in Special Civil Application No. 14668 of 2020):

2.1 The petitioner no. 1 - Siddhpur Taluka Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited is a taluka level co-operative society. It has primary co- operative societies as also individual persons as members. The managing committee of the petitioner no. 1 Sangh consists of 17 members. Out of these 17 members, 11 members are to be elected by agricultural cooperative societies, 1 member from the

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

other cooperative society, 3 delegates are individual members, 1 is a representative of the government department and 1 is a representative of the District Cooperative Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.06.2018, it gave public notice for the information of the delegates and the primary societies that an annual general meeting will take place on 01.07.2018. The case of the petitioner is that a unanimous resolution was passed for amending bye-laws 1 to 54 in the annual general meeting. The resolution was sent for approval to the District Registrar who in turn approved the amendment to the bye-laws on 27.07.2018. At the outset, it may be pointed out that the challenge to the amendment to the bye laws is a subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 15372 of 2020.

2.2 The case of the petitioner society is that since its term was for 5 years from 22.08.2015, the Sangh gave a registered notice to all its members on 12.03.2020. The notice was issued under Rule 3A of the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1982 (for short 'the Rules') for the purposes of determination of constituencies of all the seats. The objections were invited for such determination of constituencies on or before 27.03.2020. A provisional constituency's list was published on 12.03.2020 by which 11 zones came to be determined for Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies. For the other cooperative societies, one seat was identified and the same was notified. For individual members, 3 seats and the names of the delegates who were elected from individual members were published for zones 13, 14 and 15.

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

2.3 In view of the intervening pandemic, the State issued a notice on 24.03.2020 not to hold any elections. On 30.06.2020, a modification was made that the election process may start from the stage where it had stopped. Accordingly, the petitioner Sangh issued an advertisement in the newspaper on 01.07.2020 that it had resumed the process of determining constituencies in accordance with the public notice dated 12.03.2020 and it invited objections from all concerned on or before 07.07.2020 for a hearing to take place on 08.07.2020. On 08.07.2020, the petitioner no. 1 - cooperative society addressed a letter to all its members wherein it was informed that for the purpose of preparing a voters' list of the ensuing elections, the members are requested to send the names of their representatives on or before 20.07.2020. Since the petitioner no. 1 society did not receive any objections to the constituencies/zones as determined, the same came to be determined as constituencies by the order of the Manager of the petitioner no. 1 on 08.07.2020.

2.4 At some stage on 27.07.2020, one Ramnagar cooperative Society engaged in growing of potatoes and millets raised an objection before the Deputy Collector regarding determination of the zones. No objections were raised before the Taluka Cooperative Sangh especially respondents no. 4 and 5 herein. In August 2020, one Lalsinh Thakore also made an application to the Deputy Collector to stall the elections because he had no opportunity to raise objections. An application was also made by one Samoda Fruit and Vegetable Utpadak Vechan Sangh - respondent no. 4 on 24.08.2020. Certain societies also enrolled themselves by showing their willingness to pay subscription

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

including respondent no. 5 Mandali in order to enroll itself as a voter.

2.5 In other words, once the petitioner society had initiated the process of holding elections in accordance with the Rules, the Deputy Collector and the Election Officer published an election programme on 24.08.2020 of the first stage by publishing the stages of voters list, for inviting objections, for the date of determining the objections and for the publication of final voters list. The election programme with complete details of constituencies and names of the members of society falling in the respective zones was published.

2.6 At this stage, two events happened at the hands of the respondents no. 4 and 5 societies. Firstly, on 24.08.2020, these societies i.e. respondents no. 4 and 5 filed an appeal under Section 153 with application for condonation of delay wherein they challenged the amendment to the bye laws dated 27.07.2018 before the Registrar, Cooperative societies. Those proceedings are a matter under consideration in Special Civil Application No. 15372 of 2020.

2.7 As far as the present petition is concerned, the same respondents no. 4 and 5 filed Arbitration Suit/ Lavad Suit being Lavad Suit No. 158 of 2020 where the petitioners were joined as the defendants. The prayer in the suit was that the decision of creating zones by the petitioners vide order dated 08.07.2020 may not be implemented and the petitioners be restrained from acting on the same. The Registrar, Nominees Court by an order dated

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

20.08.2020 granted ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 8(A) of the application Ex. 6.

2.8 Acting on the stay granted by the Nominees court, the Deputy Collector and the Election Officer passed an order on 25.08.2020 observing that since the Registrar, Nominees Court had granted stay, the election to the petitioner society needed to be postponed. The Registrar, Nominees Court after a bi-parte hearing, by an order dated 29.10.2020 granted the application till the final disposal of the Lavad Suit.

2.9 As is evident from the prayer in Special Civil Application No. 14668 of 2020, the order of the Deputy Collector dated 25.08.2020 postponing the elections to the petitioner society and the order of the Registrar, Nominees court below Ex. 6 dated 29.10.2020 are under challenge before this court.

3. Mr. P.K. Jani, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Shivang Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner, inviting the attention of the court to the pleadings in the Lavad Suit and the prayer made in the suit to set aside the order dated 08.07.2020 by which there was a decision of creating zones by the petitioner for the purposes of elections, would submit that once the election officer has published the schedule of elections notifying the dates and when the respondents no. 4 and 5 had not raised any objections to the determination of constituencies, the order of the Lavad Suit dated 29.10.2020 ought to be quashed and set aside.

3.1 Mr. Jani would invite the attention of the court to Section

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

145C and the provisions of Section 74C to submit that in accordance with these provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, elections have to be held as far as possible one month before the date on which the term of the office of the members is due to expire. The term of the elected members of the Managing Committee is five years. The elected members of the Managing Committee ceased to hold office on the date of expiry of the term and the election of the Managing Committee shall be conducted before the expiry of its term so as to ensure that the newly elected members of the Committee assume office immediately on the expiry of the term of office of the members of the outgoing managing committee. He submitted, therefore, that it was the statutory duty of the election officer to see that the election process is completed and such an election process cannot be stalled on the basis of an interim injunction by the Registrar of the Nominees Court.

3.2 Mr. Jani would submit that the order passed in the Lavad Suit should in no way come in the way of the Deputy Collector and the Election Officer in finalising the voters' list as there was no order of the Registrar to restrain the Election Officer from preparing and finalizing the voters' list as per the notice issued on 24.08.2020.

3.3 Mr. Jani would also submit that the order of the Registrar, Nominees Court was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the dispute did not fall within the competence of the Nominees Court under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. The issue involved, looking to the plaint, was directly or indirectly in respect

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

of an election of a specified co-operative society. Admittedly, therefore, the only remedy that was available to the respondents no. 4 and 5 was that of approaching the Tribunal under Section 145U of the Cooperative Societies Act read with Rules 75 and 82 of the Rules. Mr. Jani would submit that the order of the Registrar, Nominees Court was without jurisdiction and therefore even a remedy by way of a revision was not an efficacious and alternative remedy.

3.4 Mr. Jani would invite the attention of the court to the relevant rules of the Rules namely Rules 3A, 4, 5 and 6 and submit that on reading Rule 3A it would be evident that the constitution or the creation of zones was in exercise of de-limitation of constituencies for the purpose of election and therefore when read in context of Section 145U of the Cooperative Societies Act, it was clear that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 95 or any other provisions of the Act if the dispute was relating to an election, then it shall be referred to the Tribunal. This being the position, he would submit that the order of the Registrar, Nominees Court in exercising powers under Section 96 of the Act was without authority of law. He would also invite the attention of the court to the provisions of Section 145B wherein the term 'elections' is defined.

3.5 Mr. Jani would submit that since what was in essence prayed for was to set aside an election and once the election process was on in accordance with the specified election rules, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was clearly barred. On these grounds, he would submit that the court ought to interfere and reverse the order of the

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

Registrar, Nominees Court and also direct the Deputy Collector and Election Officer to continue with the election process in accordance with the spirit of the statutory provisions of the Act.

3.6 In support of his submissions that the election has to be held in accordance with the scheme of the Act, Mr. Jani rleied on the decision in the case of Natwarlal Pitambardar Patel vs. A.B. Trivedi [2005(2) GLR 1453] and Manavadar Bantva Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union Limited vs. State of Gujarat [2004 JX (Guj) 1708].

4. Mr. B.S. Patel, learned Senior Advocate would contest the submissions of Mr. Jani and submit that there is no error of law and the order of Registrar, Nominees Court cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. He would further submit that looking to the prayers made in the petition, a writ of certiorari would not be maintainable.

4.1 Mr. Patel would submit that all the averments in the plaint are to be considered and read as a whole. The suit essentially is with regard to a dispute regarding the constitution of the Managing Committee in context of the amendment to the bye law and therefore squarely falls within the realm of a dispute under Section 96 of the Act. He would further submit that in accordance with Section 150(9) of the Act, the petition is barred on the ground of an alternative remedy. The petitioner can approach the cooperative Tribunal against the order passed by the Board of Nominees.

4.2 Mr. Patel would further submit that what was under challenge

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

before the Board of Nominees was implementation of an order dated 08.07.2020 in context of creation of zones for the purposes of election and further that the society may deal with the applications for share subscriptions made by the private respondents in a proper procedure and the amendment to the bye laws being contrary to law, the jurisdiction of the Registrar, Nominees Court was invoked.

4.3 Mr. Patel would submit that merely because the Election Officer is made a party in the petition, that itself would not make the petition seeking a writ of certiorari maintainable. He would submit that looking to the prayer in the petition there is no prayer quashing and setting aside the proceedings of a Lavad case and therefore no writ of certiorari would lie. The spirit of the suit was to maintain the bye laws and therefore it was necessary that the suit was maintainable as the dispute fell within Section 96 of the Act.

5. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader would submit that the election officer had no other alternative as an independent officer to postpone the elections till the outcome of the proceedings before the Registrar, Nominees Court in exercise of his powers under Rule 3A(9) of the 1982 Rules. He had no other option but to act independently as a judicial authority he was already ceased of the matter and though he was not a party to the proceedings since the prayer was in context of the elections, he has acted independently and not taking any sides of the parties concerned.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

the respective parties, perusal of the plaint and the suit would indicate that the petitioner society had undertaken the exercise of creating zones for determination of constituencies for the purpose of election to the Managing Committee. It is in this context that it will be worthwhile to reproduce Rule 3A and 4 of the Rules as under:

           "3A.   Delimitation            of   constituencies             for
           purpose of election.

(1) In every society where there are more than one constituencies, the Secretary or where there is no post of Secretary, the Chief Executive Officer of every such society shall, in the year preceding the year in which election to the Committee is scheduled to be held, prepare a provisional list of the constituencies.

(2) Such list shall describe the limits of each constituency. A copy of the provisional list shall be displayed with a notice to be signed by the Secretary or where there is no post Secretary, the Chief Executive Officer of the society on the notice board of every office or suboffice of the society. A copy of such provisional list along with the notice shall also be sent to the Registrar and to the Collector.

(3) A copy of such list along with notice shall also be sent to every member of the society by registered post.

(4) The notice referred to in subrule (2) and (3) shall clearly lay down that any objections or suggestions in respect of the provisional list may be sent by any person to the Secretary or where there is no post of Secretary, to the Chief Executive Officer of the society within a period of 15 days from the date on which the provisional list is displayed

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

on the notice board of the office of the society. (5) Any member of the society may bring to the notice of the society any omission or error in respect of the name or address or other particulars shown in the provisional list.

(6) Any person raising any objection or making a suggestion shall send such objection or suggestion with grounds therefor in writing within 15 days from the date on which the provisional list is displayed on the notice board of the office of the society.

 (7) The        society      shall    after     considering
 every objection, suggestion or any error in            the

provisional list indicated by any member under sub- rule (5), prepare the final list. The final list shall be displayed on the notice board of the office or sub- office of the society and a copy of such final list shall be sent to the Registrar and also to the Collector.

(8) Where the area of operation of a society is in more than one village, the number of constituencies shall be equal to the total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under subsection (1) of section 74B.

(9) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules and the byelaws of the society, where the elections to the members of any Committee are scheduled to be held before the ending of the accounting year of the society, the delimitation of the constituencies shall be made by the Collector prior to the publication of the list of voters"

Rule 4 : Provisional list of voters:

"(1) A provisional list of voters shall be prepared in Gujarati by every society for the year in which general election is due to be held. Persons who are members as on the date of drawing up the accounts of the year in which such election is due shall be included in the

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

provisional list. If different constituencies are provided in the bye-laws, the names of voters shall be arranged constituency wise as laid down in the bye-laws."

7. Reading of the Rules would indicate that in every society where there are more than one constituencies, in the year preceding the year in which election is scheduled, the society has to prepare a provisional list. The language of the rule itself suggests that a provisional list of constituencies is to be prepared for the purposes of election. The provisional list of constituencies is the foundation for preparation of the voters' list and the process of elections further when you read Rule 4 of the Rules.

7.1 Obviously therefore, if one is to consider the purpose and the spirit of the preparation of the constituencies is in furtherance of the election process to the Managing Committee of the society. It is in this context that one needs to refer to the provisions of Section 145B read with Section 145U of the Act.

7.2 Therefore, what is clearly borne out is that what is under challenge directly is a process of creation of constituencies for the purposes of election. This therefore does not fall in the realm of a dispute which could be covered under Section 96 of the Act. The reading of the language of Section 145U suggests that the provision is one notwithstanding Section 96 of the Act. Thus, looking to the plaint and the pleadings therein in context of the prayer made, the order of the Registrar, Nominees Court in exercising jurisdiction by staying the operation of order dated 08.07.2020 amounted to interfering in the process of election. That squarely did not fall within the domain of jurisdiction vested in

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

him under Section 96 of the Act.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Registrar, Nominees Court below Ex. 6 in Lavad Suit No. 158 of 2020 is quashed and set aside. The natural consequence of setting aside of this order would be that there would be no fetter on the Deputy Collector and Election Officer so voiced by order dated 25.08.2020 to hold elections to the Managing Committee of the petitioner no. 1 society from the stage where it was postponed. Special Civil Application No. 14668 of 2020 is accordingly allowed.

9. This brings us to the second petition filed by the petitioner Sangh namely Special Civil Application No. 15372 of 2020 which is filed challenging the order dated 13.11.2020 passed in Misc. Application No. 19 of 2020 by the respondent no. 1 in Regular Appeal No. 56 of 2020 by which the Additional Registrar, Appeals has condoned the delay of 750 days in an application for condonation of delay filed by respondents no. 3 and 4 of the present petition who are the same respondents of the Lavad Suit No. 158 of 2020 - respondents no. 4 and 5 of Special Civil Application No. 14668 of 2020.

10. The facts have been narrated hereinabove in context of Special Civil Application No. 14668 of 2020. What is evident from the facts hereinabove is that aggrieved by the amendment to the bye laws made by the petitioner society on 27.07.2018, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 153 of the Act before the Additional Registrar (Appeals). It is the case of the petitioner as argued by Mr. Jani, learned Senior Advocate that preceding the

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

amendment to the bye laws, notice was issued to all the members of the society, a meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 07.06.2018 where a resolution was passed to amend the bye laws. An Annual General Meeting was held wherein a notice was given that the bye laws would be amended. The amended bye laws was sent to the Registrar and the Registrar approved the amendment on 27.07.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents no. 3 and 4 herein participated in the meeting and did not object to the amendment to the bye laws and thereafter after almost two years filed an appeal before the Additional Registrar challenging the amendment to the bye laws and filed an application for condonation of delay. By the impugned order the Additional Registrar condoned the delay of 750 days in filing the appeal.

11. Mr. Jani would submit that the order condoning the delay is not warranted. He would submit that a public notice was issued, the respondents participated in the meeting, did not raise any objections, in fact participated and unanimously voted in favour of the amendment and now they have turned around to challenge the amendment to the bye laws after a period of 750 days. The additional registrar ought not to have condoned the delay as there was no sufficient cause shown.

11.1 Mr. Jani in support of his submissions would rely on the following decisions:

(I) State of West Bengal vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality [(1972) 1 SCC 366]

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

(II)Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [(2010) 5 SCC 459] (III) Nazmabegam Noormohammed Rangrej @

Nazmabanu Fahimbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others

[2013(1) GLH (UJ) 1]

(IV) Nanjibhai Vitthalbhai Rathod (Kumbhar) Vs. Nanubhai

Devjibhai Gohil [2013(JX) (GUJ) 557]

11.2 Mr. Jani would also submit that it is a well established position of law that the members are bound by the bye laws particularly when they have approved the same and they are therefore estopped from challenging the bye laws. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the decisions in the following cases:

(a) Antakampa Milk Producers Co-operative Society Limited vs. Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers [2004 (1) GLR 310]

(b) Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. And Another vs. District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Urban) and Others [(2005) 5 SCC 632]

(c) Banaskantha District Co-operative Union Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat through Deputy Secretary [2011 (2) GLR 2682]

(d) Karmacharinagar Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited vs. State of Gujarat [2013(3) GLR 2682]

(e) Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited vs. State of Gujarat [2016 (1) GLH 282]

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

12. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the respondents no. 3 and 4 would submit that by condoning the delay of 750 days by the impugned order, the Additional Registrar (Appeals) has not committed any illegality. He would submit that at the outset the petition is barred on the ground of an alternative remedy being available under Section 155 of the Act inasmuch as a revision application is maintainable before the State Government.

12.1 On merits, Mr. Desai would submit that what the Additional Registrar has done is only condone the delay in filing the appeal. No decision adverse to the right of the petitioner has been taken. He would submit that the order condoning the delay is a discretionary order and hence the petition may not be entertained when there is exercise of discretion. He would submit that the respondents no. 3 and 4 have shown sufficient cause in not being able to prefer an appeal within the stipulated time. He would rely on the decision in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coal Fields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 361. He would also rely on the decision in the case of K. Subbarayudu and Others vs. Special Deputy Collector reported in 2017 12 SCC 840 wherein the court has observed that where orders are passed condoning the delay, they are discretionary orders and ought not to be interfered with.

12.2 With regard to the contention of Mr. Jani that the appeal of the respondents was not maintainable under Section 153 of the Act Mr. Desai would invite the attention of the court to provisions of Section 13 and submit that an order passed with regard to the

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

amendment of the bye laws is an order appealable under Section 153 of the Act. For such purposes, he would rely on the decision in the case of Surat District Co-operative Bank Limited vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 7280 of 2015 annexed with the affidavit-in-reply.

12.3 On merits, Mr. Desai would submit that Rule 6 of the Rules provides for procedure to be followed for amendment of bye laws. Even bye law no. 49 of the Society provided 14 days notice. In the present case, a public notice was issued on 18.06.2018 for a general body meeting to be held on 01.07.2018. The agenda notice was not sent to each and every member but was displayed only on the notice board. The types of amendments that were required to be made in the bye laws were not published in the agenda notice. It were under these circumstances that the respondents have been constrained to challenge the proceedings before the Additional Registrar (Appeals).

13. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar appearing for the State with would submit that it is a settled legal position that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the merits of the case are not required to be gone into, however, a meritorious case also should not be thrown out merely by refusing to condone the delay. In this context she relied on the decision rendered by this court in the case of Prahladbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer in Special Civil Application No. 1104 of 2008. She also relied on the decision in the case of Hotel Surya Palace vs. Jindal Hotel Limited [(2014) SCC OnLine Guj 10276] where the court has held that it should be reluctant to shut out a

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

case on merits only on the ground of limitation. She would submit that the court should adopt a justice oriented approach while considering an application for condonation of delay. In support of the same, she would rely on the decision in the case of Executive Officer vs. G. Arumugum reported in (2015) 3 SCC 569. She would also submit drawing the attention of the court to the list of dates that there is no illegality in exercising powers by the Additional Registrar and holding discretion in favour of respondents no. 3 and 4 condoning the delay. It is made out by the private respondents that they were unaware of the amendments in the byelaws.

14. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties, what needs to be appreciated is that though an alternative remedy under Section 155 of the Act is available to the petitioner, the court would deem it fit to consider the case on merits. By the impugned order dated 13.11.2020, what the Additional Registrar Appeals has done is only condone the delay of 750 days in filing an appeal by the respondents. The issue raised by the respondents no. 3 and 4 in the application for condonation of delay is that though a public notice was issued on 18.06.2018 in the newspaper regarding the annual general meeting to be held on 01.07.2018 no specific agenda containing the details was published. It was only after the list of constituencies or zones was sent by the Manager of the Society to the authorities concerned on 08.07.2020 and when there was a discussion amongst the members regarding the eligibility criteria for contesting elections, that the respondents no. 3 and 4 came to know of such an amendment. The amended bye laws were

C/SCA/14668/2020 CAVJUDGMENT

received by the respondents on 29.07.2020 and 05.08.2020. The Annual General Meeting did not give any idea of the amendment of the bye-laws and what was orally discussed was the enabling bye law to bring out greater dividend to the members and not with regard to the change of the bye laws so as to effect the right to vote.

15. Weighing all these considerations, the Additional Registrar (Appeals) has exercised discretion and condoned the delay. As rightly submitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar and Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the respondents, what the Additional Registrar has done is merely condone the delay which does not really adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. The hearing of the appeal on merits is still at large before the appellate authority. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, when no prejudice is caused to either party by the order of condonation of delay, I see no merit in entertaining Special Civil Application No. 15372 of 2020. Accordingly, Special Civil Application No. 15372 of 2020 stands dismissed. And as stated earlier, Special Civil Application No. 14668 of 2020 is allowed. No costs.

(BIRENVAISHNAV,J) DIVYA