JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) THE short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner as the chief promoter applied for grant of registration on 15. 11. 1997 to the District registrar of Co-operative Societies, Junagadh district, junagadh. On 11. 5. 1998 the decision was communicated to the petitioner that the proposal of the petitioner was examined and ultimately in the meeting dated 23. 4. 1998 of the District Agriculture Produce Co-operative and irrigation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the committee for short) it has been decided to reject the same unanimously. Copy of the said decision which was communicated as per the letter dated 11. 5. 1998 is produced on record at Annexure-C to the petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 83 of 1998 before the Addl. Registrar (Appeals) of Co-operative societies, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar wherein the decision dated 11. 5. 1998/23. 4. 1998 was challenged. The additional Registrar (Appeals) heard the appeal and ultimately found that prima-facie it does not reveal that the registration granted to the opponent no. 2 society who is respondent no. 3 herein viz. Arena Seva Sahakari mandali Ltd. is irregular. The contention the petitioner society was that the application for grant of registration to the petitioner society was first in point of time and therefore, it could not have been rejected or the subsequent application of the respondent no. 3 could not have been considered without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Registrar while dismissing the appeal further ordered that the application of the petitioner may be considered and appropriate decision may be taken. ( 2 ) THIS petition was admitted on 19. 7. 1999. However, no interim orders were passed. Therefore, on account of no interim order granted by this court, the respondent no. 3 society has continued to function. The only ground of challenge is that since the application made by the petitioner was first in point of time the respondent no. 2 could not have been granted registration. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the communication dated 11. 5. 3 society has continued to function. The only ground of challenge is that since the application made by the petitioner was first in point of time the respondent no. 2 could not have been granted registration. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the communication dated 11. 5. 1998 shows that the proposal of the petitioner was examined by the Technical and supervision Committee and the report was submitted to the said Committee and a decision was taken for rejecting the same and therefore merely because the application of the petitioner was first in point of time is no ground to contend that the respondent no. 3 could not have been granted registration. Normally, if an application is made prior in time, the same may be considered first but that does not mean that even if the first application is not valid as per the report of the Technical and Supervision Committee, the decision must be first taken in respect of the application made prior in point of time and then only the second application can be considered. Still however, the Additional Registrar has directed for consideration of the application of the petitioner and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioners right to apply for registration is foreclosed for all time to come. ( 3 ) THERE is no substance in the contention that the petitioner should have been given the hearing before granting of application of respondent no. 3 for registration. Reliance was placed by the petitioner to section 4 is ill founded inasmuch as the petitioner society was not granted registration at the relevant point of time and since it was not functioning there is no question of considering the adverse effect upon the existing society. ( 4 ) IN my view the exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Authority is proper and it does not call for any interference under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India more particularly when a direction is already given to consider the application of the petitioner by the authority concerned. ( 5 ) IN view of the above, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. .