JAYANT PATEL - (1.) On 5/9/03 this court had passed the following order: "Notice returnable on 16.9.03. Mr.Waghela waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.4. DS to respondent Nos 1,2 & 3 is permitted. By way of ad interim order, it is directed that the statusquo as existing today shall be maintained which would include that no new member shall be admitted by the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 shall not create any financial burden for its affairs and only routine activities will continue subject to further orders of this court."
(2.) Today, matter is taken up for final hearing. Rule. Heard Mr.Jani for the petitioner and Mr.Zaveri for respondent No.4 and Mr.Joshi, Ld.AGP for Government authorities.
(3.) The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner is a primarylevel Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali in the village Nandotra having population of 3,182. It is the case of the petitioner that it had, in all, 365 members. It appears that there was dispute between certain members of the petitioner society and there was also resolution passed by the petitioner society for expelling certain persons as members, but the said resolution was ultimately not approved by the District Registrar. Pending the aforesaid, it appears that the said group of persons against whom resolution for expulsion was passed moved proposal to the District Registrar for formation of new milk producers' cooperative society, namely, Arbudanagar (Nandotra) Milk Producers' Coop.Society Ltd. The petitioner had filed objections intimating the District Registrar that the formation of respondent No.4-society shall adversely affect the existing society.The District Registrar considered the matter and as per the decision dated 24.4.03 the registration was refused. The promoters of the respondent No.4 preferred appeal being Appeal No.88/03 before the Addl.Registrar (Appeals) against the decision of the District Registrar and the Addl.Registrar (Appeals) after perusing the record found that the present respondent No.4-society is situated at a distance of about 100 Mtrs and it also found that the districtlevel union has declined to give any recommendation for registration of the respondent No.4 society . He also found that if the respondent No.4 society is registered it will create not only number of complications but the existing society has invested huge amount of Rs.17 lacs and if the registration is granted it will adversely affect the existing society and therefore ultimately the appeal was dismissed. The respondent No.4 carried the matter before the State Government and the State Government found that since the minimum eligibility criteria is satisfied and as the proposed society is likely to have financial soundness, the revision was allowed by setting aside the order of the Additional Registrar (Appeals) and directed the Dist.Registrar to register the society. It has been submitted by Mr.Zaveri during the course of hearing that thereafter in August, 2003 the registration has been granted by the District Registrar pursuant to the order of the State Government and on 5.9.03 this court had passed the order issuing notice and after hearing it was ordered that the statusquo shall be maintained to the effect that no new member shall be admitted. However, the case of the respondent No.4 is that prior to the order dated 5.9.03 passed by this court 80 members are already admitted. The aforesaid order of the State Govt in revision is under challenge in the present petition.;