MAJOOR MAHAJAN SHARAFI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD. , BHAVNAGAR Vs. MAHALAXMI MILL KAMDAR J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner society has questioned the order passed by the Deputy Secretary on behalf of the State of Gujarat on 27. 5 in a revision confirming the order passed by the Joint Registrar on 20. 9. 1982 by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE petitioner society came to be registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 (the Act for short ). Respondent No. 1 society filed appeal no. 503 of 1982 before respondent no. 3. District Registrar of the Co-operative Societies challenging the registration given to the petitioner society under the Act. The appeal was filed under the provisions of section 153 of the Act. The Appellate Authority after hearing both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances cancelled the registration of the petitioner society. Consequently the petitioner herein filed a revision under section 115 of the Act before the State Government which came to be decided on 27. 5. 1983. The revision was dismissed and the order passed in appeal came to be confirmed. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) FIRSTLY it may be stated that the jurisdictional sweep of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution is very much circumscribed. The- questions of fact cannot be reexamined and reappreciated. It is also not permissible for this court which entertaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to reassess and reapprise the evidence on record. There is no allegation in the present case that the authorities below nad no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. No illegality is successfully pointed out. No perversity is spelt out The Appellate Authority has rightly held that registration of the petitioner society is not proper and is not in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act. There is no allegation in the present case that the authorities below nad no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. No illegality is successfully pointed out. No perversity is spelt out The Appellate Authority has rightly held that registration of the petitioner society is not proper and is not in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:-"a society which has as its object the promotion of the economic interests or general welfare of its members or of the public in accordance with Cooperative principles or a society established with the object of facilitating the operations of say such society may be registered under this Act: Provided hat it shall not be registered if in the opinion of the Registrar it is economically unsound or its registration may have an adverse effect upon any other society or it is opposed to or its working is likely to be in contravention of public policy. " ( 4 ) IT could very well be seen from the proviso to section 4 of the Act that in a case where it is found that the proposed registration of a society if granted will have an adverse effect upon any other society or will operate as a hindrance in the working of the other society or will prove economically unsound and its working is likely to be in contravention of the public policy the registration could be refused. The registration was not done in accordance with the provisions of section 4 and the Rules. The Authorities below have concurrently and consistently found on fact that the registration of the petitioner society is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and particularly with reference to the provisions of section 4 and the relevant Rules. The investigation of fact made by the Authorities below cannot be reexamined and reassessed. The respondent-Authority has unequivocally found on fact that it is economically unsound and will adversely effect respondent no. 1 old and rival Mahalaxmi Mill Kamdar Co-operative Society. It is also found on fact by the Respondent-Authority that continuance of the petitioner society is opposed to public policy as there is likelihood of fight between the members of both the societies. This finding of fact requires no interference as otherwise it is also justified in view of the record of this petition. It is also found on fact by the Respondent-Authority that continuance of the petitioner society is opposed to public policy as there is likelihood of fight between the members of both the societies. This finding of fact requires no interference as otherwise it is also justified in view of the record of this petition. therefore it is rightly held by both the authorities concurrently and consistently that there is clear violation of the provisions of section 4 of the Acts ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case and considering the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules this court has no hesitation in finding that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is without any substance and requires to be dismissed. Therefore it is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. The learned counsel for this petitioner at this stage submits that the interim relief may be continued for six weeks as the petitioner society would like to pursue further remedy before the Supreme Court. Considering the facts and circumstances the interim relief is ordered to be operative till 31 October 1994 petition Dismissed. .