JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. The present petition is filed by Nava Jakhel Seva Sahkari Society Limited, through its chairman Shri Pethabhai Virabhai Patel. 1.1 The petitioner is a cooperative society duly registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The case of the petitioner is that the society was registered and registration certificate was issued on 28.03.2003, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B, page No.41. Thereafter, a General Body Meeting was convened on 13.04.2003, wherein respondent No.4 herein, who was the main promoter, had remained present, his name is appearing at Sr. No.1 in the list of the persons present, which was signed by him. In that General Body Meeting, resolutions were passed which are also on record of this case at Annexure-E. By resolution No.1, present Chairman Shri Patel Pethabhai Virabhai was proposed by one Shri Patel Dudabhai Revabhai which was seconded by one Shri Patel Jamabhai Shivabhai. Thus, the present Chairman got elected. By respondent No.5, passed in the very same meeting, the Managing Committee Members were also appointed and they started functioning as the Managing Committee of the Mandali. The Managing Committee also had a meeting on 14.04.2003 and passed a resolution and started the management of the Mandali. The Mandali applied for the licence for the fertilizer, which too came to be granted on 28.04.2003. Thus, the Mandali became functioning in all aspects. 1.2 Having not elected as a Chairman of the Mandali, the main promoter - Shri Patel Dajabhai Jodhabhai filed a complaint before the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Banaskantha by a letter dated 22.04.2003, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-H. The District Registrar did not accept the contention raised by respondent No.4 who then filed a Revision Application being 73 of 2003 before the Deputy Secretary (Agriculture & Cooperative Department), State of Gujarat, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-J. The Revision Application came to be allowed by order dated 23.07.2003, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-L. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2003, the petitioner Mandali is before this Court. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jinesh Kapadia for Mr. Harin Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Prakash K. Jani, learned advocate for respondent No.4 and Mr. Anand L. Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2003, the petitioner Mandali is before this Court. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jinesh Kapadia for Mr. Harin Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Prakash K. Jani, learned advocate for respondent No.4 and Mr. Anand L. Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the communication by the Assistant Registrar dated 28.03.2003 - Annexure-D, minutes of the General Body Meeting dated 13.04.2003 - Annexure-E, minutes of the Managing Committee Meeting dated 14.04.2003 - Annexure-F, resolutions passed by the General Body Meeting at Sr. No.1 and 5, licence issued by the authorities in favour of the Mandali on 28.04.2003 and a copy of the licence - Annexure-G. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the main promoter, i.e. respondent No.4 has participated in the meeting of the General Body held on 13.04.2003 and as he has not been elected to the post of Chairman, he filed the complaint before the District Registrar, Banaskantha and thereafter the Revision Application. He submitted that the appellate authority has not taken into consideration this particular aspect of the matter and ignoring the fact that respondent No.4 was present in the General Body Meeting, the order under challenge is passed which is required to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 6. Mr.Jani, learned advocate for respondent No.4, invited attention of the Court to the pains and steps taken by the main promoter, i.e. respondent No.4 for forming a cooperative society, the exercise for forming the Mandali started somewhere in the year 2000. He submitted that later on, other persons who are now in charge of the Mandali hijacked the registration certificate and have taken away the fruits of the labour put in by respondent No. 4. 7. Notings of the business undertaken by General Body is produced by respondent No.4 at Annexure-IV, but then the same does not bear any date, not only that, there is no authentication of the same, hence the same does not inspire any confidence. Besides, earlier documents, viz. the minutes of the Meeting of the General Body Meeting and signature of respondent No.4 therein are not controverted effectively. Besides, earlier documents, viz. the minutes of the Meeting of the General Body Meeting and signature of respondent No.4 therein are not controverted effectively. In fact, there is no material placed to show that the said document, i.e. minutes of the General Body Meeting dated 13.04.2003 does not bear the signature of respondent No.4. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed, because in absence of the refutal of the document - minutes of the General Body Meeting, the only inference which can be drawn is that respondent No.4 did take active part in the proceedings and subsequent challenge by alleging that there is capture of the Mandali by rival group is only an after thought for having lost the election to the post of chairman. 9. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that impugned order dated 23.07.2003 was stayed by this Court at the time of admission hearing of this matter on 29.11.2004 and due to that, the Mandali has remained functioning in the hands of the present Chairman for all these years. It is not the case of respondent No.4 that the Mandali is not holding any election, which respondent No.4 can contest and can legitimately get into the office of the Chairman of the Mandali. 10. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the authority dated 23.07.2003 is without any merit and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No costs. Petition disposed.