JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ). RULE. Mr. K. G. Vakharia, learned Senior Counsel, waives of service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Archana Amin, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no. 3 and she declares before the Court that Vakalatnama shall be filed within a period of one week from today. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THE present petition is preferred by the petitioner for challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 29th September, 2003 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal in Revision Application No. 265 of 2003 whereby the stay application is rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 4th July, 2003 passed by the Joint Registrar and Member of Board of Nominee below the stay application in Lavad Suit No. 1433 of 2003. ( 3 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is one of the members of the Managing Committee, preferred Lavad Suit No. 1433 of 2003 for challenging the legality and validity of the resolution passed by the Managing Committee on the basis of casting of vote by the Chairman. The contention of the petitioner before the Board of Nominee was that one of the member, namely, Nandubhai Ramanbhai Patel, respondent no. 3, was remaining absent consecutively for four meetings and, therefore, as a consequence thereof, he had ceased to be the member of the Managing Committee and he could not participate in the meeting. It was the contention of the petitioner, who was the plaintiff before the Board of Nominee, that if the vote of the said respondent no. 3 is excluded, the consequence would be that the proposal moved for representation of the petitioner would get majority and not respondent no. 2, who is the present Chairman of respondent no. 1-Society. ( 4 ) MR. HARIN P. Raval, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Board of Nominee passed the ex parte order and thereafter, the Court Commissioner was appointed and it has come on the record of the Court Commissioner that respondent no. 3 has not attended the meetings. He submitted that even there was no application of respondent no. HARIN P. Raval, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Board of Nominee passed the ex parte order and thereafter, the Court Commissioner was appointed and it has come on the record of the Court Commissioner that respondent no. 3 has not attended the meetings. He submitted that even there was no application of respondent no. 3 on record, but, the said application was at the residence of the Chairman, who is respondent no. 2 herein. He, therefore, submitted that the event of cessation on account of not attending four meetings consecutively had occurred and it has resulted into automatic cessation to continue as a member of the Managing Committee. He submitted that there was no tie if respondent no. 3 came to be excluded and, therefore, the Chairman could not have casted the vote. He submitted that the Board of Nominee initially granted ex parte order, pursuant to which the names of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 were included in the voters list and thereafter, the Board of Nominee vacated the stay as per the order dated 4th July, 2003, against which the petitioner preferred revision, being Revision Application No. 265 of 2003, before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal and in the said revision application, the stay application is rejected and, therefore, this petition. ( 5 ) MR. HARIN P. Raval, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the election is now scheduled to be held and even if the Court considers the matter for the purpose of not to interfere with the process of election, appropriate modification of the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be made because ultimately, even if the petitioner succeeds in the Lavad Suit, the Court may not be in a position to pass effective order if, as it is, respondent no. 2 is allowed to participate in the election. ( 6 ) ON behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. K. G. Vakharia, learned Senior Counsel, submitted, inter alia, that the present petition is a petition under Article-227 of the Constitution of India and the revision application is still pending before the Tribunal. He submitted that the present petition is not maintainable and even if it is maintainable, normally this Court would not interfere when the matter is at interlocutory stage. Mr. He submitted that the present petition is not maintainable and even if it is maintainable, normally this Court would not interfere when the matter is at interlocutory stage. Mr. Vakharia also submitted that on merits also, there is no case of the petitioner inasmuch as in his contention, automatic cessation would not come into effect and an application was already submitted by the member concerned. He also submitted that there is no noting, as required under the bye-laws, and there is also no intimation by the society to the member concerned. ( 7 ) ON behalf of respondent no. 3, Ms. Archana Amin, learned Counsel, has raised similar contentions as are raised by Mr. K. G. Vakharia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ( 8 ) HAVING considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I would have recorded the reasons for modification of the order passed by the Tribunal, but, the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, Mr. Raval, Mr. Vakharia and Ms. Amin, have requested the Court not to record reasons and, therefore, I have found it proper not to record the reasons. Suffice it to say that blanket rejection of the stay application by the Tribunal would not meet with the ends of justice and the Tribunal, with a view to see that the Court may be in a position to pass effective final order in future if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit and with a view to see that the plaintiff may not be rendered remediless, by exercising judicial discretion with a view to render justice, ought to have made the participation of respondent no. 2 at the ensuing election of Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Limited subject to the final order, which may be passed either in the Revision Application or in the Lavad Suit pending before the Board of Nominee. The Tribunal, in my view, has ignored the aspect that even if the declaration of the results of the election on the basis of participation by respondent no. 2 is not to be stayed or interfered with, some effective orders could have been passed by the Tribunal to identify by making a note of the vote casted by respondent no. 2 at the aforesaid ensuing election. 2 is not to be stayed or interfered with, some effective orders could have been passed by the Tribunal to identify by making a note of the vote casted by respondent no. 2 at the aforesaid ensuing election. In my view, if such an effective order is not passed, even if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit or files the election petition, appropriate forum may not be in a position to consider the matter effectively nor such forum may be in a position to grant appropriate relief if ultimately, it comes on record that the result of the election is materially affected by one vote. I would have recorded further reasons, but, in view of the aforesaid insistence of not inviting of the reasons by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I leave the matter at that stage without observing any further and, therefore, in my view, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified to some extent, as stated hereinbefore. ( 9 ) MR. RAVAL, Mr. Vakharia and Ms. Amin have declared before the Court that they would make appropriate request to the Tribunal to dispose of the Revision Application on the same lines, as may be observed by this Court, and neither side has any objection if the Lavad Suit is expedited and they shall cooperate with the trial of the suit. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the above and in view of the aforesaid observations, I am of the view that the following directions shall meet with the ends of justice: (I) The order of the Tribunal dated 29th September, 2003 passed below the stay application in Revision Application No. 265 of 2003 is modified only to the extent that participation of respondent no. 2 herein at the ensuing election of Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Limited shall be subject to further and final orders, which may be passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application No. 265 of 2003 or in the proceedings of Lavad Suit No. 1433 of 2003. The aforesaid modification shall be with a further direction that the concerned election authority shall, after counting the votes of respondent no. 2, also put a separate note, with a view to identify the vote of respondent no. 2 and shall put the said note and the vote of respondent no. The aforesaid modification shall be with a further direction that the concerned election authority shall, after counting the votes of respondent no. 2, also put a separate note, with a view to identify the vote of respondent no. 2 and shall put the said note and the vote of respondent no. 2 in a separate sealed cover, which will be produced as and when so ordered by the learned Nominee or other competent forum. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal impugned in this petition is not disturbed. It is further clarified that the election authority shall be at liberty to declare the result after counting of vote of respondent no. 2, but, such counting shall be subject to the earlier observations and directions. (II) Both the sides shall be at liberty to move the Tribunal for final disposal of the Revision Application as per the declaration made before this Court and it will also be open to the petitioner to move the Board of Nominee for early disposal of the Lavad Suit. It is clarified that if any such request is made before the Board of Nominee, the learned Nominee shall make an attempt to dispose of the Lavad Suit as early as possible. The petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions only. Rule is partly made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs. The petitioner will be at liberty to serve a copy of the order to the concerned election officer. Direct Service is permitted. .