( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed challenging order dated 01. 12. 2007 made by Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Revision Application No. 42 of 2007 upholding order dated 15. 02. 2007 made by the Board of Nominees below Application Exhibit 6 in Lavad Suit No. 115 of 2007. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Member of respondent No. 1 Co-operative Housing Society. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 Society is a tenant ownership co-operative housing society where the land belongs to the society and the superstructures are owned by the Members. That despite such position in law, according to the petitioner, by virtue of resolution passed on 21. 09. 2006 other respondents are being permitted to merge their plot Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 into one consolidated plot and also merge the road abutting these five plots into a larger plot without there being any permission from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The petitioner preferred Lavad Suit No. 115 of 2007 before the Board of Nominees accompanied by an application Exhibit 6 for staying operation of resolution dated 21. 09. 2006 and consequential action by the respondents. Initially the Board of Nominees granted exparte ad-interim stay which came to be vacated after bipartite hearing vide order dated 15. 02. 2007. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal. For the reasons stated in impugned order dated 01. 12. 2007 Revision Application No. 42 of 2007 has been rejected. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order made by the Tribunal on the ground that both the Tribunal and the Board of Nominees have failed to address the principal issue in question while rejecting the application for stay, viz. whether respondent No. 1 society is empowered to pass resolution of the nature which has been passed on 21. 09. 2006, being resolution No. 4. In other words, it was submitted that the resolution permitting sale of land belonging to the society for putting up construction for commercial purpose was not warranted either by the provisions of the Act, Rules, or Bye-laws of respondent No. 1 Society. That in the event stay as prayed for was not granted the petitioner would face a situation whereby the suit would be rendered infructuous which is pending before the Board of Nominees. That in the event stay as prayed for was not granted the petitioner would face a situation whereby the suit would be rendered infructuous which is pending before the Board of Nominees. In support of the submissions made reliance was placed on decisions of this Court in the cases of : [i] Sangna Cooperative Housing Society Limited V/s. Jyotiben Jogibhai Patel, judgment dated 29. 06. 2006 and 01. 07. 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 4278 of 1997, [ii] The Tolak Co-operative Housing Society Limited V/s. The State of Gujarat , order dated 08. 02. 2007 in Special Civil Application No. 13725 of 2006 whereby the petition came to be admitted, [iii] Ambica Nagar Co-op Housing Society Ltd. V/s. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 11343 of 2006 whereby the petition came to be admitted. It was contended that on parity the case of the petitioner deserves consideration and the petition is required to be admitted granting interim relief as prayed for. ( 4 ) AS can be seen from the impugned order made by the Tribunal after considering all the contentions raised by both the sides to the Revision Application, the Tribunal has specifically recorded that the stand of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 Society is a residential society and hence, commercial construction cannot be put-up, but the said issue cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of interim relief because the very same issue has been raised by the petitioner in the Civil Suit filed against Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in the Civil Court. The Tribunal has further observed that in the event the bye-laws of the society do not permit any commercial activity then there is no reason to assume that Municipal Corporation will grant permission to put-up construction by giving go bye to the relevant Rules and Regulations and the Bye-laws of the Society. It is further observed that the Civil Court would also pass an order in accordance with law and hence, at this stage, considering the factors of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss which have not been established by the petitioner, no interim relief can be granted and the order made by the Board of Nominees does not merit acceptance. ( 5 ) IN exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the scope available to the High Court is limited. ( 5 ) IN exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the scope available to the High Court is limited. Both the Board of Nominees and the Tribunal have concurrently found that the petitioner has failed to establish any prime facie case, or that balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner or that irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner in the event the petitioner is not granted stay as prayed for. There is not only no material on record to disturb the said concurrent findings, but as noted by the Tribunal even before resolution of 21. 09. 2006 there is a resolution of 15. 12. 2004, whereunder the use of internal roads of the society is restricted to Members who do not have access to other T. P. Roads, that in case of the petitioner, admittedly the petitioner has access to T. P. Road. Therefore, the Tribunal has found, as a matter of fact, none of the rights of the petitioner are violated at this stage so as to warrant interference in the order made by the Board of Nominees rejecting application Exhibit 6. ( 6 ) IT is also an accepted position that in Civil Suit No. 1338 of 2006 (Annexure q ) the petitioner has sought permanent injunction against Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in relation to the very same plots of land and proposed commercial activities on the said plots of land being permitted by the Municipal Corporation. In the circumstances, in absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal upholding the order of Board of Nominees, no interference is warranted and the petition is summarily rejected. Request for extending the stay of operation of the Tribunal s order at this stage made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is rejected.