JUDGMENT : S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J. 1. The petitioners, in this group of three petitions, are members of existing cooperative societies, operating in the area called Patanvaav, Chichod and Kalana, in Dhoraji Taluka of Rajkot District. They have filed these three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 31st March, 2011 granting registration to, and registering three new cooperative societies, i.e. respondent no. 4, for the three areas respectively, on the ground that the registration, is in violation of the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Co-Operative Society Act) and, is granted only for inflating the voters list for the Agriculture Produce Market Committee and the Co-Operative Bank of the area, and being mala-fide, deserve to be quashed and set aside. 2. As all the three petitions have almost similar facts and common grounds for challenging the registration of new cooperative society,-respondent No. 4 in the respective petition they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. Facts, in brief, leading to filing these three petitions, deserve to be set out as under. 3.1. This petition is filed by three petitioners who are members of Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahkari Mandli Ltd. the existing society, operating in the area of village Patanvaav and Chichod in Dhoraji Taluka of Rajkot District since 27th, March 1950. As per provisions of Section 4 of the Gujarat Co-Operative Societies Act 1961 the existing society has right to be heard when any new society, in the same area of operation and field, is proposed to be registered. 3.2. The petitioners have alleged in the petition that the ruling party has, with a view to inflate the voters list of various local authorities, including the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dhoraji and Rajkot and other federal cooperative societies, and District co-operative Bank, initiated action in the Rajkot District to register new cooperative societies in various villages. The petitioners have alleged that the official machinery is being used by the ruling political party for achieving their object of capturing power position in various federal cooperative societies and institutions like District Co-operative Bank, Agriculture Produce Market Committee in the Rajkot District. The petitioners have alleged that the official machinery is being used by the ruling political party for achieving their object of capturing power position in various federal cooperative societies and institutions like District Co-operative Bank, Agriculture Produce Market Committee in the Rajkot District. The petitioners have alleged in the memo of petition that respondent No. 4 society is accorded registration with a view to inflate the voters list in various federal cooperative societies and the District Cooperative Bank. The District Cooperative Bank is also joined as respondent No. 5 as its General Manager happens to be the member of District Technical Committee, a Committee undertaking exercise of scrutinizing the proposal for forming society for registration and recommending it to the registering authority. The various irregularities and unholy haste in registering the respondent No. 4 is pleaded and averred in the memo of petition and it has also been averred that the authorities in order to fulfill their evil design, in utter disregard of their own guidelines for registering the new societies in the area, registered this new society-respondent No. 4. The registration of respondent No. 4, therefore, is challenged praying quashing of the order dated 31st March, 2011. Special Civil Application No. 5585 of 2011 3.3. The petition being Special Civil Application No. 5585 of 2011 is filed by 9 petitioners who happen to be the members of Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the existing society) They feel aggrieved on account of registration of new society in the village Patanvaav, respondent No. 4. 3.4. The identical challenge is raised on identical grounds and the registration of respondent No. 4 is prayed to be quashed and set aside. 3.5. Thus, the aforesaid two petitions have been filed by the existing members of existing society operating in the village Patanvaav and Chichod. The existing society being Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahkari Mandli Ltd, which for the sake of convenience, would be referred hereinafter as of Patanvaav Existing society. The said society is operational in two villages i.e. Chichod and Patanvaav in Dhoraji Taluka. The registrations of new societies which have been registered for these two villages i.e. Chichod Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. and Shri Patanvaav Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. is are under challenge in these two petitions respectively. Special Civil Application No. 5586 of 2011 3.6. The said society is operational in two villages i.e. Chichod and Patanvaav in Dhoraji Taluka. The registrations of new societies which have been registered for these two villages i.e. Chichod Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. and Shri Patanvaav Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. is are under challenge in these two petitions respectively. Special Civil Application No. 5586 of 2011 3.6. The ten petitioners, members of Shri Kalana Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., operating in village Kalana, Tal:Dhoraji, District: Rajkot have by way of this petition challenged registration granted in favour of respondent No. 4, Shri Patidaar Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the "New registered society" on the grounds which are similar to those canvassed and relied upon in the earlier two petitions mentioned hereinabove. 3.7. Thus, three newly registered societies, registered on 31.05.2011, in these three villages namely Chichod, Patanvaav and Kalana, are respondent no. 4 in these three petitions. Their registration is challenged on almost identical facts and grounds. 4. The averments and allegations made in these petitions are almost identical and their reply by the respective respondent new societies are also identical, with little more elaboration in reply where needed to meet with peculiar facts alleged against it. They would be adverted to, at the appropriate places hereafter in this judgment, suffice it to say here that broadly speaking the members of the existing society i.e. two existing societies operating in the area and field i.e. Patanvaav, Chichod and Kalana, have approached this Court challenging registration of three new societies by joining them as respondent No. 4 in the respective petition, which have been registered for three villages i.e. Patanvaav, Chichod and Kalana. 5. The respondent No. 1, in these three petitions, is a State of Gujarat, through Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Gandhinagar, respondent No. 2 is District Registrar Cooperative Societies and Chairman, District Technical Committee, Rajkot, respondent No. 3 is Additional District Registrar Cooperative Societies (Panchayat), who happens to be Secretary and Member of District Technical Committee, District Panchayat, Rajkot and the newly registered society and respondent No. 5 is Rajkot District Cooperative Bank through its General Manager who also is acting as Member, District Technical Committee, Jilla Bank Bhavan, Rajkot. 6. Learned advocates appearing for petitioners and respondent no. 6. Learned advocates appearing for petitioners and respondent no. 5 have submitted that the challenge to the new registration is on following grounds:- (i) The respondent while registering the society did not appreciate that the principle of natural justice have to be complied with and the existing society operating in the area is required to be given hearing and 'no objection' from the existing society is required to be obtained. In the instant case, as it is alleged in the petition, the existing society did not hold its meeting for passing any resolution so as to enable the Chairman/President of the existing society to issue any 'No Objection' letter in favour of the proposed society, which has been registered and hence this factor has not been appreciated properly and the registration is granted which is contrary to provisions of law and hence requires to be quashed and set aside. (ii) The learned advocates for the petitioners and respondent no. 5 contended that the registration of respondent No. 4 in these three petitions being not in interest of the members, the same should not have been granted, and, therefore, the action of registering the three new societies vide order dated 31st March, 2011 being bad in eye of law is required to be quashed and set aside. (iii) The learned advocates for the petitioners and respondent no. 5 thereafter contended that the exercise of registering these three societies itself raises serious doubts with regard to the genuineness of documents relied upon for the societies' registration. Various representations i.e. representations of the Hon'ble Member of Parliament and the reputed persons were not taken into consideration and in undue haste the societies were registered. (iv) The petitioners and respondent no. 5's advocates thereafter contended that so far as the petition being Special Civil Application No. 5585 of 2011 is concerned, as could be seen from averments in Para 3.19 of that petition, organizer of respondent No. 4 society i.e. Shri Patanvaav Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. Patanvaav, addressed a letter dated 17th March, 2011 to the competent authority withdrawing the application for registration of respondent No. 4 society. The Taluka Development Officer forwarded it to respondent No. 3 by making endorsement on the said application for accordingly closing the file regarding registration of respondent No. 4 society. The letter is annexed at Annexure-'R' to the memo of that petition. The Taluka Development Officer forwarded it to respondent No. 3 by making endorsement on the said application for accordingly closing the file regarding registration of respondent No. 4 society. The letter is annexed at Annexure-'R' to the memo of that petition. In this petition, it has also been contended that the members who have been shown to have joined the new society have expressed in writing to the respondent No. 5 bank that they are not member of the new society nor have they paid any subsequent or membership fees and thus creating bogus document of this nature the society has obtained its registration and, therefore, the it's registration is required to be quashed and set aside. (v) The advocates of the petitioners' have further contended that the registration of society is to be made by the competent authority as per the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The so-called delegation of power to Panchayat under exercise of section 174 of the Panchayat Act would not justify the registration by the Committee of Panchayat and this being contrary to law the registration which is result of such illegal act is required to be quashed and set aside. (vi) The advocates for the petitioners have further contended that the State could not have delegated powers to Panchayats by enactment in the Gujarat Panchayat Act without corresponding amendment to the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The entire exercise of registration is therefore wholly illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. (vii) By way of Draft Amendment the petitioners in all the three petitions have also challenged Notification dated 31.08.1981 issued by the State of Gujarat in exercise of power conferred upon it under Section 156 (as it stood then before the enactment of the Gujarat Panchayat Act 1993) of the Panchayat Act 1961 as illegal on the ground that the powers of registering authorities flowing there from could not have been validly delegated without making corresponding amendment in the Gujarat Co- Operative Societies Act 1961. The impugned order made by respondent no. 3 who is an officer of Panchayat, on recommendations of the committee constituted under the Gujarat Panchayat Act 1961 would thus be an order without jurisdiction and hence of no avail to the respondent no. 4 societies. The impugned order made by respondent no. 3 who is an officer of Panchayat, on recommendations of the committee constituted under the Gujarat Panchayat Act 1961 would thus be an order without jurisdiction and hence of no avail to the respondent no. 4 societies. (viii) The petitioners' advocates have drawn this Court's attention to various copies of documents annexed to these petition and submitted that the following illegalities are pleaded as an independent ground for quashing the registration. Those illegalities may be enumerated as under: (a) The so-called 'no objection' letter purported to have been issued by the existing societies, relied upon by the authorities for registering the respondent no. 4, being not a result of a resolution passed in a General Body Meeting of the existing societies, could not have been treated as valid 'no objection' from the existing societies so as record compliance with the provisions of natural justice and grant registration to Respondent no. 4. The registration, thus granted without affording an opportunity to the existing society, would be nullity in eye of law and hence it is required to be quashed and set aside. (b) As per the requirement of applicable rules for registration the proposed society has to have running bank account and in the instant case no such account existed on the day when the registration was granted thus the registration, which is granted contrary to said requirement of having bank account in existence, amounts to illegality which may be considered and the registration be quashed. (c) In respect of Special Civil Application No. 5585 of 2011, one additional lacuna was alleged, that the Chief Proposer of the society had addressed a letter dated 17.03.2011 expressing his desire to withdraw his proposal and the Taluka Development Officer concerned also forwarded it to higher ups after making due endorsement thereon. The same was therefore required to be considered by the Technical Committee while considering the proposal. The said Technical Committee held its meeting on 28th March, 2011 and as could be seen from the deliberations of this meeting it would transpire that the said factor has not been even discussed at all. The same was therefore required to be considered by the Technical Committee while considering the proposal. The said Technical Committee held its meeting on 28th March, 2011 and as could be seen from the deliberations of this meeting it would transpire that the said factor has not been even discussed at all. (d) The recommendation of Technical Committee qua the respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Application No. 5585 of 2011 was in absence of any valid proposal as the so-called withdrawal of withdrawal proposal was itself dated 29th March, 2011 i.e. subsequent to the meeting held on 28th March, 2011 by the Technical Committee. Thus, legally speaking the committee recommended the registration of respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Application No. 5585 of 2011 in absence of valid proposal. (e) The registering authority so far as respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Application No. 5585 of 2011 is concerned, did not appreciate these facts and it considered withdrawal aspect perfunctorily and treated it to have been not withdrawn on mere telephonic verification about the veracity thereof. Therefore it can well be said that the entire exercise was undertaken with a view to inflate the voters list and hence the same requires be quashed and set aside. (f) The serious allegation with regard to duplication of names of members and creation of bogus documents were not appreciated by the registering authority, and, therefore, the registration which is result of such exercise would not be tenable in eye of law and hence registration is required to be quashed and set aside. (ix) Petitioners' advocate in order to justify their locus to file this petition relied upon decision of this Court in case of Sureshbhai Babubhai Sunara vs. Ahmedabad District Co-op. Bank Ltd. 2003 (4) GLR 3707 and in case of Jayantilal Shanabhai Shah and others vs. Ambikaben Shivshankar Trivedi and Another, AIR 2003 Gujarat 58 and submitted that the petitioners have right to file petition and maintain this challenge against the illegal registration of new cooperative society-respondent no. 4 hereinabove in this petition. (x) The advocates of the petitioners' contended that the inflating of voters list by registering unviable society is also deprecated by this Court in the judgment of Vachhol Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 15560 of 2003, the Court has observed that, the registration of such societies should be cancelled. (x) The advocates of the petitioners' contended that the inflating of voters list by registering unviable society is also deprecated by this Court in the judgment of Vachhol Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 15560 of 2003, the Court has observed that, the registration of such societies should be cancelled. 7. The learned advocate for respondent No. 4 in these three petitions, by drawing attention of this Court to various averments made in the memo of petition as well as in the reply affidavit contended that the petitioners who are merely member of existing society have no right to maintain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned advocate for the petitioners without prejudice to the aforesaid contention with regard to locus-standi of the petitioners in challenging the action of registration contended that the petitioners have filed these petitions at the instance of the persons who are in fact having their position in the respondent No. 5 bank and they are apprehending that on account of such registration of respondent No. 4 society their position would be jeopardized. Thus, these petitions are nothing but proxy litigation filed at the instance of those who are interested in continuing their power-position in federal society and District Cooperative Bank respondent No. 5. 8. The advocates for the respondent no. 4 invited this Court's attention to the averments made in memo of reply affidavit and submitted that the contention that, the petitions are filed for and on behalf of the persons in power in District Cooperative Bank respondent no. 5 herein above apprehending that registration of new societies, respondent no. 4, would have adverse impact upon the elections in District Cooperative Bank, made on oath in the reply affidavit has not been dealt with cogently in affidavit in rejoinder. Only lame and vague denial on the part of the petitioners in meeting with this contention would not help petitioners in overcoming their patent hurdle of lack of locus-standi for maintaining these petitions. 9. Learned advocates for the respondent No. 4 further contended that the petitioners are in fact acting in furtherance of evil design of discouraging the new societies from being registered and, therefore, all sorts of hurdle and impediments were created to discourage the registration of new society. 9. Learned advocates for the respondent No. 4 further contended that the petitioners are in fact acting in furtherance of evil design of discouraging the new societies from being registered and, therefore, all sorts of hurdle and impediments were created to discourage the registration of new society. The District Cooperative Bank, which is joined as respondent No. 5 (respondent No. 5 in all these petitions) has, through its advocate, argued at length against the registration of the society. The objection on the part of the bank is not to be considered by the registering authority as the Bank cannot be said to be a society operating in the same field or in the same area of operation. The economic activities proposed to be undertaken by the newly registered societies and the Bank are different and therefore stand taken by the bank speaks volume about the underlying design for resisting and challenging registration of new societies. The 'No Objection' letters are issued by the existing societies through its Chairman and, therefore, the petitioners have not been correct in obtaining ad interim relief of 'status quo' on the ground that the authority registered respondent no. 4 societies, in absence of any 'No objection letter' from the existing societies. 10. Learned advocate for respondent No. 4 society invited this Court's attention to the 'No Objection letter' issued by existing society so as to indicate that the petitioners were not correct in contending that in absence of any “No objection letter” the authorities registered the new societies. The learned advocate for the respondent no. 4, newly registered society, also submitted that the 'No objection Letter' issued by the Chairman of existing society was in fact approved and ratified by the existing society though it was not needed, by passing appropriate resolution copy whereof is placed on record of this petition. The learned advocates for the respondent no. 4 thereafter invited this Court's attention to the averments made in reply affidavit of respondent No. 4 society and contended that new societies have justified their registration on account of they being viable and there being requirements for new societies in the area. These factors have been appreciated by the registering authority and, therefore, the challenge to the registration by minority members of existing society may not succeed. 11. These factors have been appreciated by the registering authority and, therefore, the challenge to the registration by minority members of existing society may not succeed. 11. Learned advocate for respondent No. 4 society thereafter contended that the ground urged by the petitioners and respondent No. 5 for impugning the registration is wholly imaginary and, therefore, being baseless deserves to be discarded outright. The petitioners have by the averments demonstrated that they are fighting proxy battle on behalf of persons in power in the bank so as to continue their regime in the bank and, therefore, such proxy litigation needs to be nipped in bud and the petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground also. 12. Learned advocate for respondent No. 4 society thereafter contended that the so-called lacks of power on the part of the registering authority, on the strength of submission that the delegation is not permissible is also absolutely ill-founded and requires to be rejected. Learned advocate relying upon the provisions of section 174 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and section 162 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act contended that the action of registering authority cannot be assailed on this ground by the petitioners who are merely minority members of the existing society. The advocate for respondent No. 4 invited this Court's attention to the document which he tendered to the Court with the copy to the other side that society i.e. Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahkari Mandli Ltd. has in terms ratified the granting of no objection by their Chairman. The resolution is placed on record. So far as the existing society has not come forward and rather it has passed resolution in favour of respondent No. 4 society then few members of the existing society who might not be agreeing with the majority views and resolution have no independent right or locus-standi to bring any petition or maintain the same and, therefore, petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to be dismissed with costs. 13. 13. Learned advocate for respondent No. 4 relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Daman Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1985 SC 973 and in case of State of U.P. and Another vs. C.O.D. Chheoki Employees' Cooperative Society Ltd. and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 681 submitted that the cooperative society when feeling aggrieved by any State action than said society alone can come forward and file petition or proceed for challenging the same. The individual members of the cooperative society have no right to file petition in their individual capacity challenging the action which could be only challenged by the cooperative societies. 14. Learned advocate for respondent No. 4 contended that the decisions cited in support of maintaining the petition did not indicate that the Supreme Court judgment cited hereinabove were taken into consideration, in fact learned advocates for the petitioners have accepted that there is no reference to these Supreme Courts' decisions in this Court's decision and facts of those judgment cited by the petitioner's advocate are different then the facts of the present case, and, therefore, those judgments will have no applicability. 15. Learned advocate for respondent No. 3 invited this Court's attention to the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No. 3 and submitted that the entire procedure for registration is absolutely just and proper and the registration of respondent No. 4 societies is in accordance with law, and, therefore, these petitions may be dismissed. 16. The advocate for respondent No. 3 further contended that the petitioners are minority members of the existing society in the area and they have therefore no locus-standi to maintain the petition challenging the registration. 17. The learned advocate for respondent No. 3 invited this Court's attention to various documents and averments from the memo of petition, the annexure to the petition as well as the averments made in the reply affidavit and submitted that the contention of the respondent No. 4 society may be considered that the petitioners are in fact fighting proxy battle and are not entitled to maintain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. 18. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 contended that the petitions being filed by individual petitioners of existing society will not be maintainable on account of absence of any locus-standi to file and maintain the petition against the registration of new societies, he therefore submitted that the action of registration being just and proper the petition may be rejected. 19. This Court has heard learned advocates for the parties at length and perused the documents placed on record. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it would be most appropriate to set out herein below, few indisputable aspects emerging there-from: (i) The individual members of existing cooperative societies in their individual members' capacity have filed these petitions challenging order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the respondent no. 3 registering new societies, respondent no. 4 for reasons mentioned in the petition. (ii) The petitioners have approached this Court in their individual capacity and they have not filed this petition on behalf of existing society of which they claimed membership, nor have they even remotely claimed to be authorized by the existing societies for filing these petitions. (iii) The Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 is filed by three members of Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahkari Mandli Ltd., the existing mandali operational in village Chichod and Patanvaav. (iv) These three members-petitioners of the existing society have challenged the registration of respondent No. 4 society viz. Shri Chichod Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. (v) The petitioners have claimed no authorization whatsoever from the existing society viz. Shri Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahkari Mandli Ltd. for filing this petition challenging the registration of respondent no. 4. (vi) Not only petitioners have not claim any authorization from their existing society for filing the petition challenging the registration of respondent no. 4 but they have also, through their advocates, taken up a specific stand that the individual members of the existing society have locus-standi and right to challenge the registration of new society in the area. Thus, it becomes evident and unequivocal that the petitioners have filed the petitions in their individual capacity and are not having any support from the existing society on whose behalf they claim to have been aggrieved so as to challenge the registration of respondent No. 4 society. (vii) The petitioner no. Thus, it becomes evident and unequivocal that the petitioners have filed the petitions in their individual capacity and are not having any support from the existing society on whose behalf they claim to have been aggrieved so as to challenge the registration of respondent No. 4 society. (vii) The petitioner no. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 himself had proposed a new society and sought its registration as it is evident from the record. The petitioner no. 1 of petition being Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 had put a proposal for registering new society in the name of (proposed) Shri Chichod Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. Chichod and shown 67 members on whose behalf he was seeking registration of the said society. (viii) The petitioner no. 1 of Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 is the petitioner out of the three who has affirmed this petition and stated that the averments made in the petition are correct and he along with two other petitioners being aggrieved by registration of new society-respondent No. 4, as it is likely to affect the existing society and its members, preferred this petition. (ix) The Assistant District Registrar Cooperative Society Respondent No. 3 has stated on oath by filing an affidavit as under: “It is submitted that the Technical and Supervision Committee of the District of Rajkot resolved to opine that the proposed society promoted by Mr. Mayurbhai K. Singla be registered and a proposed society promoted by Rameshbhai Maganbhai Lakhani as a Chief Promoter i.e. petitioner no. 1 herein is having just 67 members and, therefore, there is no recommendation for it and a copy of the said resolution is annexed as ANNEXURE-B. It is pertinent to note that No Objection Certificate issued by the Chairman and Secretary of Patanvav Juth Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd dated 21.12.2010 was forwarded by Taluka Development Officer, Dhoraji along with his proposal and was also taken into consideration by the Technical and Supervision Committee before passing the said resolution.” These averments are made on oath and they have not been dined by formal denial on oath indicate that they are correct and the affidavit in rejoinder filed by petitioner no. 1 who is said to have been proposed new society in the village Chichod itself with strength of 67 members has taken inconsistent stand in opposing the registration of respondent no. 1 who is said to have been proposed new society in the village Chichod itself with strength of 67 members has taken inconsistent stand in opposing the registration of respondent no. 4. (x) The petitioners have in memo of petition being Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 nowhere made any averment that the existing society did not issue 'no objection.' The petitioners have made following averments in the memo of petition in respect of 'letter of No Objection' to be issued by existing society which deserve to be set out as under: “Para 4.12: The petitioners submit that there already exists a society for the same area of operation known as Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahkari Mandali Ltd. The petitioners are members of Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahkari Mandali Ltd. and they have serious objection against any registration of a new society for the same area of operation.” “Para 4.13: There is also a requirement to obtain No Objection from the District Cooperative Bank before the application is processed by the Committee as also the applicant is required to produce evidence to show that a bank account with the District Bank is opened.” “Para 4.15: The petitioners respectfully submit that besides, it is also relevant to mention that no Resolution has ever been passed by Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahkari Mandali Ltd. to grant any NOC for registration of respondent No. 4. No notice is received by the petitioners in respect of any meeting to discuss about any agenda for grant of NOC in favour of respondent No. 4.” “Para 4.17: The Branch Manager of the Patanvaav branch of the District Bank has given a letter dated 4.4.2011 stating that having inspected the Minutes Book of the existing society, there is no Resolution passed in any meeting of the existing society for grant of NOC for registration of respondent No. 4 Society.” “Para 20: The report of respondent no. 5 bank also shows that no Resolution is passed by the existing society in its meeting for grant of NOC, which is a pre-requisite for consideration of any application for registration of a new society in a village there already exists a society.” Thus, from the aforesaid averments made on oath it can be said that nowhere the petitioners have indicated that there was in fact “letter of No Objection” issued by the Chairman of the existing society but as it was only issued by the Chairman without any resolution of the existing society the said “letter of No Objection” was not valid for registering the new society, respondent no. 4. The Letter of 'No Objection' considered was not issued by entire society by passing resolution. It was only issued by the Chairman. The petitioners have instead of making thus specific averments attempted to project their case as if there was no “No Objection” at all from any quarter. The petitioners have clearly avoided specific averments that though there exists a “Letter of No Objection” issued by the Chairman of the existing society but the same was not to be treated as valid “letter of no objection” from the existing society as no general body meeting was called for discussing matter of issuing “letter of no objection” in favour of the respondent no. 4 societies. In short it was bounden duty of the petitioners to make specific averment that there was a Letter of 'No Objection' issued by the Chairman of the existing society and then they could have submitted that said 'letter of no objection being issued merely by Chairman was not valid as it was not issued on the strength of any General Body resolution. But instead they omitted in making mention of 'letter of No Objection' by the Chairman or Secretary of the existing societies which in fact were relied upon for and taken into consideration by the Committee while granting registration to the newly formed societies respondent no. 4 herein above. The petitioners could not claim any ignorance of existence of such letter as it was subject matter of discussion in all the meetings held by Technical Committee as well as meeting held by the committee who ultimately ordered registration of respondent no. 4 society. The respondent no. 4 herein above. The petitioners could not claim any ignorance of existence of such letter as it was subject matter of discussion in all the meetings held by Technical Committee as well as meeting held by the committee who ultimately ordered registration of respondent no. 4 society. The respondent no. 5 the District Cooperative Bank, who has all along supported the petitioners' stand and who is alleged to have helped the petitioners in producing the correspondence and communications which otherwise could not have been in the custody of the petitioners and they have not explained the sours of its availability, through its General Manager was present in the meeting dated 28.03.2011 wherein the new proposals were being discussed threadbare, and who in fact opposed those proposals on account of lack of “No Objection” from the District Cooperative Bank i.e. his employer whom he represented in the committee but could not object new proposal on the ground that the existing societies have also not issued any “ Letter of No Objection” as he could not have done so on account of the “Letters of No Objections” from the existing societies available with the new proposal. The petitioners have made no attempts to even plead ignorance of existence of such letter of 'No objection' even in their rejoinder affidavit. (xi) The entire memo of petition does not contain any averments disclosing the fact that the petitioner No. 1 himself had proposed society with the help of as many as 67 members for village Chichod his proposal was considered by the very same committee and very same registering authority along with the proposal of respondent no. 4 society and was not accepted. The ground urged for challenging aforesaid proposal thus, being conveniently raised for resisting the registration of respondent no. 4 when his own proposal had failed though the grounds urged against registration of respondent no. 4 society were in fact available against his own proposal also. Thus petitioners have not only evinced scant regards for principles of co-operative movement but also changed stand as per their convenience. (xii) The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011, in Para 4.3 have submitted that the exercise of registration of respondent No. 4 being exercise intending for inflating the voters list of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, operating in Dhoraji and Rajkot, required to be quashed. (xii) The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011, in Para 4.3 have submitted that the exercise of registration of respondent No. 4 being exercise intending for inflating the voters list of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, operating in Dhoraji and Rajkot, required to be quashed. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 have enclosed the newspaper cutting on page:31 of the compilation which indicates from its caption that there was hue and cry against the practice of the District Co-operative Bank respondent no. 5 herein above that it cannot deny opening of the accounts by the proposed registered society as it would amount to an act contrary to the principles of spreading the cooperative movement. The said page-clipping is annexed and reference is made to it in Para 4.5 in Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 to indicate that it was act in order to help the proposed society and direction to the Bank. (xiii) The petitioners in all these petitions have heavily relied upon the representation dated 28th March, 2011. The said page-clipping is annexed and reference is made to it in Para 4.5 in Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 to indicate that it was act in order to help the proposed society and direction to the Bank. (xiii) The petitioners in all these petitions have heavily relied upon the representation dated 28th March, 2011. The averments made in the memo in Para 4.7 are to this effect and respondent No. 4 society in his reply have made, in Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 the averments to meet the same, they are set out as under: “Para 5: At the outset, I say and submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed with costs as the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court and has suppressed material facts from the Hon'ble Court with the sole intention to obtain order in their favour by making wrong and incorrect statement on oath before the Hon'ble Court.” “Para 6: I say and submit that the present petitioners have no locus-standi to file the present petition before this Hon'ble Court because they are not aggrieved by the decision of the District Panchayat registering the society respondent No. 4 and individual has no right to challenge the registration of the society because the individual is neither aggrieved nor affected by the registration of the primary cooperative society at village Chichod, Taluka Dhoraji, District Rajkot.” “Para 7: I say and submit that the present petition is sponsored litigation filed by the Chairman of Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and thereby District Central Cooperative Bank having monopoly to give finance to the primary cooperative societies to the farmers and the Chairman of Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. wanted to retain power as Chairman of the Bank and as a part of the strategy the present petition is sought to be filed by him in the name of the present petitioners though all the documents which are in the custody of Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. have been parted with. Shri Rajkot District Cooperative bank Ltd. a District Apex bank cannot part with the documents submitted by the primary cooperative societies to individual and thereby committed breach of the principles of secrecy between the primary cooperative societies and the Bank which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the Chairman of Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. is misusing the position and by issuing circulars and notices with the help of Branch Manager is threatening the farmers who wanted to establish their own primary cooperative society for availing various facilities from the NABARD, fertilizer, seeds, agricultural equipments and other benefits which the existing primary cooperative societies do not provide. I say and submit that the present petition at the instance of the petitioners is not maintainable.” “Para 8: I say and submit that a patent incorrect statement has been made before the Hon'ble Court by the advocate for the petitioners that “the existing society did not issue any no objection for registration of the proposed society, yet the committee concerned has proceeded on the basis, as if, there was no objection on the record.....” This is an incorrect statement. On the contrary, Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd. has given its no objection which has been produced alongwith the proposal of registration of new primary cooperative society in the name and style of Shri Chichod Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. and thereafter only the District Panchayat has granted registration to the respondent No. 4 society. Annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure-R2” is a copy of the No Objection given by Shri Patanvav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd.” “Para 10: I further say and submit that the supporters of Shri Vitthalbhai Radadiya, had also proposed new primary cooperative society at village Chichod but as they could not get sufficient number of members, the proposal has not been submitted to the District Panchayat. The said proposed society had also obtained No Objection by utilizing pressure from pressure from existing Shri Patanvav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd.” “Para 13: I say and submit that the respondent No. 5 Bank and its Chairman are only interested in getting cancelled the registration of the respondent No. 4 society because this society falls in Dhoraji Taluka where Shri Vitthalbhai Radadiya belongs and these members who have formed new society are not supporting Shri Vitthalbhai Radadiya and therefore Shri Vitthalbhai Radadiya being Chairman of respondent No. 5 with the help of its money power is playing dirty politics denying the agriculturalists to form primary cooperative society and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed as the same is not bona-fide.” “Para 14: I say and submit that the writ of mandamus cannot be issued at the instance of the present petitioners who have not come with the clean hands and who have approached the court with a view to prevent fair and free competition between two primary cooperative societies.” “Para 16: I say and submit that the present Chairman of Shri Rajkot District Cooperative bank Ltd. has started misusing powers of the Bank and has through the Bank staff wrote letter that those members who became the members of newly formed cooperative society they should not be given the loan. Not only that member may not become member of other cooperative society and letter has been issued by the respondent No. 5 through Branch Manager that the person who has joined in the new primary cooperative society they will not be entitled to the benefit of financial assistance from the Bank and they have to manage of their own. It is submitted that along with the said letter other letter has been circulated by the Manager (Loans) of Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. with a format of affidavit also wherein it is stated that “I have not attended the meeting of members of new cooperative society. I had not remained present. I have not given any writing, I was not communicated orally about the meeting, I have not deposited the amount of share fees, I have not applied to become member of the society. However I have been wrongly made member of the society. I do not want to become member of the proposed cooperative society. I had not remained present. I have not given any writing, I was not communicated orally about the meeting, I have not deposited the amount of share fees, I have not applied to become member of the society. However I have been wrongly made member of the society. I do not want to become member of the proposed cooperative society. Annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure-R4” (Colly.)” (xiv) The respondent No. 4 society so far as petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 is concerned has made averments in Para 19 which deserves to be set out as under:- “Para 19: I say and submit that the present management of the Bank is acting contrary to the provisions of law. The present Chairman of the Bank is member of 3 to 4 primary cooperative societies. He is member of Gauridad Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. at Rajkot, Jamkandorana Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Sardar Patel Kisan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. and Vegadi Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. All these four primary cooperative societies are getting loans from Shri Rajkot District Cooperative bank Ltd. The very bank is now issuing circular that the member who is forming new society will not get loan from Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. This is clear case of victimization. Proof thereof have been produced in the foregoing paragraphs. I say and submit that one Shri Ratibhai Muljibhai Boda of Paddhari Taluka is Chairman of two primary cooperative societies (1) Khambhala Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Taluka Paddhari and (2) Sarapdad Kisan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Sarapdad, Taluka Paddhari. Shri Ratibhai M. Boda is the supporter of Shri Vitthalbhai Radadiya and therefore Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. is giving loans to both the societies.” Thus, the respondent No. 4 society has indicated the vicarious interest on the part of the persons who are managing the respondent No. 5 bank and respondent No. 5 bank though on record have chosen not to deny the same in any manner. (xv) The averments made by respondent No. 4 society in the reply qua respondent No. 5 bank and its vicarious interest in challenging the registration of new society are attempted to be replied by petitioners by filing general denial and no specific denial with cogent reasons has come on record. (xv) The averments made by respondent No. 4 society in the reply qua respondent No. 5 bank and its vicarious interest in challenging the registration of new society are attempted to be replied by petitioners by filing general denial and no specific denial with cogent reasons has come on record. (xvi) The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 5585 of 2011 have relied upon one more ground in respect of withdrawal of proposal by the proposer Mr. Pethani so far as respondent No. 4 in that petition is concerned. (xvii) Learned advocate for respondent No. 4 in that petition invited this Court's attention to a signature and submitted that so-called withdrawal and its endorsement by T.D.O. different name than the name of the proposer the original proposal contains different name whereas the so called withdrawal contains different name. The learned advocate for the petitioners immediately reacted to this and submitted that this is incorrect the proposer is also known by the name which appears on the withdrawal letter. It was further contended that let it be put on oath specifically that he has not signed the so-called withdrawal which he himself stated later on by letter dated 29th March, 2011. It was contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that this is sham practice adopted by proposal of respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Application No. 5585 of 2011. There is no denial on affidavit to this allegation by proposer of respondent No. 4. (xviii) None of the petitions contains any averments indicating as to how the registration of new societies is likely to affect adversely the economic interest of the existing society or its members of course there are allegations that the newly registered societies have members who are in fact members of the existing society and as such it leads to unhealthy competition. But the petitioners have no where stated as to under which provisions of law the citizens are liable to be prevented from exercising their fundamental right to associate themselves with the person or group of persons they like. In fact except pleading “intention to inflate the voting list of the federal societies or District Bank” no other cogent reasons are set out for which the new registration could be validly resisted under Section 4 of the Cooperative societies Act. In fact except pleading “intention to inflate the voting list of the federal societies or District Bank” no other cogent reasons are set out for which the new registration could be validly resisted under Section 4 of the Cooperative societies Act. None of the petitions contain any ground envisaged by Section 4 for validly objecting the proposed societies' registration. (xix) None of the existing societies operating in the area and field, who could have possibly filed their objections under provisions of Section 4 of the Cooperative Societies Act have filed their objections nor have they at any point of time raised any objection against the propose societies or their registrations. The existing societies, which could have exercised their option to object registration of proposed new societies, have rather endorsed the granting of 'No Objection' issued their Chairman and Secretary by passing resolutions. 20. Against the aforesaid backdrop now this Court has to examine the rival contentions of the advocates for the parties. The entire scheme of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961 assigns and acknowledges certain rights, privileges and duty to the registered society. The Section 37 of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 provides that a society on its registration shall be body corporate by name under which it is registered, with perpetual succession and a common seal, and has power to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, to enter into contracts, to institute and defend suites and other legal proceedings and to do all such things as are necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted. Thus a registered society is a legal entity, a body corporate, statutorily empowered to act as such and is thus given common seal and perpetual succession so as to enable it to do anything and everything lawfully required to be done for achieving its objects and purpose. 21. In order to appreciate the scheme of registration of co-operative society it would be expedient to set out the relevant provisions and or its relevant extracts. 21. In order to appreciate the scheme of registration of co-operative society it would be expedient to set out the relevant provisions and or its relevant extracts. The provision of Section 4 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 be set out as under:- “Section 4 - Societies which may be registered - 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 co-operative principles, or a society established with the object of facilitating the operations of any such society, may be registered under this Act: Provided that 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.” The provisions of Section provides for registration with limited or unlimited liability, Section 6 lays down the conditions for registration, Section 7 empowers the State to exempt certain societies from the requirement of registration. Section 8 talks about Application for Registration and Section 9 provides for actual and elaborate procedure for registration. The provisions of Section 9 therefore needs to be set out as under: “Section 9 - Registration provisional registration, certificate of registration - (1) On receipt of an application for registration from a society (a) if the Registrar is satisfied that the society has complied with the provisions of this Act and the rules as to registration and that its bye-laws are not contrary to this Act and the rules he shall register the society and its bye-laws. (b) if the Registrar is of the opinion that the application complies with the requirements of Section 8 but that its bye-laws are not in conformity with the provisions of this Act and the rules, he may provisionally register the society and by an order in writing permit the society to perform such functions subject to such conditions as he may specify in the order and may also by an order in writing direct the society to amend within the period prescribed in this behalf its bye-laws so as to bring them in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules. (2) When a society has been provisionally registered, the Registrar shall on its compliance with the order made under clause (b) of subsection (1) finally register it and its bye-laws and on its failure to comply with the order shall cancel its provisional registration. (3) A provisionally registered society shall not be deemed to be a society registered under this Act. (4) On the registration of a society the Registrar shall issue to it a certificate of registration signed by him. (5) A certificate of registration issued under sub-section (4) shall be conclusive evidence that the society therein mentioned is duly registered, unless it is proved that registration has been cancelled. (6) If the Registrar refuses to register the society he shall forthwith communicate his decision with reasons thereof to the person who has signed first on the application. The plain reading of these provisions do not indicate any where that there is any restriction on numbers of registered societies in an area. In fact such restriction cannot be even envisaged in view of the provisions of Article 19(1) (C) of the Constitution of India. The cooperative movement as such is required to be encouraged and widely spread as to encompass as many persons as possible for their common economic development and in turn for healthy development of entire society on democratic principles. The provisions of section 4 casts duty upon the Registrar to register the cooperative society which has as its object the promotion of the economic interest or general welfare of its members or of the public in accordance with co-operative principles or even a society established with the object of facilitating the operation of any such society and the proviso thereto makes an exception to this general duty to register namely that if the Registrar is of the opinion that: (1) it is economically unsound. (2) its registration may have an adverse effect upon any other society. (3) it is opposed to or its working is likely to be in contravention of public policy. Thus an exception to the rule of registration is carved out and Registrar is enjoined not to register a cooperative society if he forms an opinion that registration is hit by any of the above mentioned three factors. (3) it is opposed to or its working is likely to be in contravention of public policy. Thus an exception to the rule of registration is carved out and Registrar is enjoined not to register a cooperative society if he forms an opinion that registration is hit by any of the above mentioned three factors. The forming of an opinion under the proviso to section 4 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 is a statutory function to be undertaken by the statutory authority and the plain reading of this provision do not indicate involvement of any other third party or any adversary or rival society. In other words legislative intent as is apparent from the plain and simple language of the Section 4 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961does not envisage or encourage any participation of third party, be it society, or any other organization, nor does it therefore create any enforceable right into any of the entity, agency or other society against the society whose proposal is under consideration by the Registrar. Therefore it needs to be borne in mind that plain and simple reading of Section 4 does not vests any other existing society with any right to even lodge it's objection to registration of new society. Had it been the legislative intent than nothing prevented the legislature from expressly provide for it. 22. In order to appreciate this aspect in more detail it would be expedient to refer to the provisions of section 6, 8, and 9 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961. In none of the provisions, the proposed society, its proposer, or the Registering Authority is required to invite objections from any agency, organization or even existing society while making an application for registration or while considering it for registration. The relevant rule no. 3 and other rules framed under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961, also do not provide for such invitation of objections and their consideration. 23. The legislative intent apparent from the provisions of Section 4, 9 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961was in fact in consonance with the provisions of Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution of India. 23. The legislative intent apparent from the provisions of Section 4, 9 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961was in fact in consonance with the provisions of Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution of India. The 5 Judge bench of the apex court has in case of Smt. Damyanti Narang vs. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 966 has held that the right to form an association, necessarily implies that the persons forming the association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. Any law, by which members are introduced in the voluntary Association without any option being given to the members to keep them out, or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it, will be a law violating the right to form an association. The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act did not merely regulate the administration of the affairs of the original society; but it in fact altered the composition of the society itself. The result of this change in composition was that the members, who voluntarily formed the Association, were compelled to act in that Association with other members who had been imposed as members by the Act and in whose admission to membership they had no say. Such alteration in the composition of the Association itself clearly held to be interfering with the right to continue to function as members of the Association which was voluntarily formed by the original founders. The Act, therefore, held to be violating the right of the original members of the Society to form an association guaranteed under Art, 19 (1) (c). Article 19 (4), on the face of it, could not be called in aid to claim validity for the Act. The alteration of the constitution of the Society the manner laid down by the Act was not in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or in the interests of public order or morality. Thus citizens have fundamental right in Article 19(1)(c) to form association with the persons of their liking and choice. The provisions of Section 4 especially proviso to it therefore if viewed from this angle, needs to be construed in proper perspective so as to read it in consonance with provisions of article 19 (1) ( c) of the Constitution. 24. Thus citizens have fundamental right in Article 19(1)(c) to form association with the persons of their liking and choice. The provisions of Section 4 especially proviso to it therefore if viewed from this angle, needs to be construed in proper perspective so as to read it in consonance with provisions of article 19 (1) ( c) of the Constitution. 24. The apex court has in case of Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and another, Appellants vs. District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Urban) AIR 2005 SC 2306 observed as under: “11. The cooperative movement, by its very nature, is a form of voluntary association where individuals unite for mutual benefit in the production and distribution of wealth upon principles of equity, reason and common good. No doubt, when it gets registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, it is governed by the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In Damyanti Naranga vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1971 SC 966 , this Court, discussing the scope of the right to form an association guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, stated that the right to form an association necessarily implies that the persons forming the association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. Any law, by which members are introduced in the voluntary Association without any option being given to the members to keep them out, or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it, will be a law violating the right to form an association. Based on this decision, it is contended on behalf of the Society that its members have the right to be associated only with those whom they consider eligible to be admitted and the right to deny admission to those with whom they do not want to associate, cannot be interfered with by the Registrar by imposing on them a member who according to them was not eligible to be admitted. The argument on this basis is sought to be met on behalf of the respondents by reference to another decision of this Court in Daman Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1985 SC 973 . Therein, their Lordships, after referring to Damyanti (supra), held that decision had no application to the situation before them. The argument on this basis is sought to be met on behalf of the respondents by reference to another decision of this Court in Daman Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1985 SC 973 . Therein, their Lordships, after referring to Damyanti (supra), held that decision had no application to the situation before them. The position was explained in the following words:- “That case has no application whatever to the situation before us. It was a case where an unregistered society was by statute converted into a registered society which bore no resemblance whatever to the original society. New members could be admitted in large numbers so as to reduce the original members to an insignificant minority. The composition of the society itself was transformed by the Act and the voluntary nature of the association of the members who formed the original society was totally destroyed. The Act was, therefore, struck down by the Court as contravening the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(f). In the cases before us we are concerned with co-operative societies which from the inception are governed by statute. They are created by statute, they are controlled by statute and so, there can be no objection to statutory interference with their composition on the ground of contravention of the individual right of freedom of association.” It is emphasized that the principle recognized in the Damyanti's case (supra) was not applicable to a co-operative society since it is a creature of a statute, the Cooperative Societies Act and that the rights of its members could be abridged by a provision in the Act. Regarding the rights of an individual member, their Lordships have stated: “Once a person becomes a member of a cooperative society, he loses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the bye-laws.” 12. Daman Singh's case (supra), in our view, is not an answer to the claim of the Society that it had the right to decide with whom it wants to associate or to deny membership to a person who was not qualified to be one in terms of the bye-laws of the Society. Daman Singh's case (supra), in our view, is not an answer to the claim of the Society that it had the right to decide with whom it wants to associate or to deny membership to a person who was not qualified to be one in terms of the bye-laws of the Society. The effect of the observations in Daman Singh's case (supra), is only that cooperative societies, from their very inception are governed by the statute, the Cooperative Societies Act, that they are created by statute, they are controlled by the statute and so, there can be no objection to statutory interference with their composition or functioning and no merit in a challenge to statutory interference based on contravention of the individual right of freedom of association. As we understand the statement of the law by this Court in Daman Singh's case, it only means that the action of the Society in refusing membership to a person has to be tested in the anvil of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and its bye-laws. Be it noted that the bye-laws had already been approved on the basis that it is consistent with the Act and the Rules. Even then, it may be possible in a given case to point out that a particular bye-law was against the terms of the Act or the Rules. Daman Singh does not indicate that the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws for that matter, have to be given the go-by, merely because the particular bye-law or action of the Society may not accord with our concept of fairness or propriety in terms of the rights available to an ordinary citizen. Therefore, in the light of the observations in Daman Singh what one has to search for, is a provision in the Act or the Rules which prevails over bye-law No. 7 of the Society, confining membership in it, to only a person who is a Parsi. Section 24 of the Act, no doubt, speaks of open membership, but Section 24(1) makes it clear that, that open membership is the membership of a person duly qualified therefor under the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws of the Society. In other words, Section 24(1) does not contemplate an open membership dehors the bye-laws of the Society. In other words, Section 24(1) does not contemplate an open membership dehors the bye-laws of the Society. Nor do we find anything in the Act which precludes a society from prescribing a qualification for membership based on a belief, a persuasion or a religion for that matter. Section 30(2) of the Act even places restrictions on the right of a member to transfer his right. In fact, the individual right of the member, respondent No. 2, has got submerged in the collective right of the Society. In State of U.P. and Another vs. C.O.D. Chheoki Employees' Cooperative Society Ltd. and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 681 , this Court after referring to Daman Singh's case (supra) held in paragraph 16 that: “Thus, it is settled law that no citizen has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) to become a member of a Cooperative Society. His right is governed by the provisions of the statute. So, the right to become or to continue being a member of the society is a statutory right. On fulfillment of the qualifications prescribed to become a member and for being a member of the society and on admission, he becomes a member. His being a member of the society is subject to the operation of the Act, rules and bye-laws applicable from time to time. A member of the society has no independent right qua the society and it is the society that is entitled to represent as the corporate aggregate. No individual member is entitled to assail the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act, rules and the bye-laws as he has his right under the Act, rules, and the bye-laws and is subject to its operation. The stream cannot rise higher than the source.” 13. Section 4, on which reliance is placed, with particular reference to its proviso, only speaks of denial of registration if, in the opinion of the Registrar, the Society to be formed was 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. Prima facie, it may have to be said that public policy, in the context of Section 4 of the Act, is the policy that is adopted by the concerned Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Prima facie, it may have to be said that public policy, in the context of Section 4 of the Act, is the policy that is adopted by the concerned Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The concept of public policy in the context of the Cooperative Societies Act has to be looked for under the four corners of that Act and in the absence of any prohibition contained therein against the forming of a society for persons of Parsi origin, it could not be held that the confining of membership as was done by bye-law No. 7, was opposed to public policy. When a statute is enacted, creating entities introduced thereunder on fulfillment of the conditions laid down therein, the public policy in relation to that statute has to be searched for within the four corners of that statute and when so searched for, one does not find anything in the Act which prevents the Society from refusing membership to a person who does not qualify in terms of bye-law No. 7 of the Society.” Thus as could be seen from the two decisions of the apex court it becomes clear that Citizens have rights to form association and therefore by necessary corollary it goes without saying that citizens have right to form association with those persons whom he like and he has freedom to disassociate himself from whom he dislikes. This right is constitutional right and no one can infringe it in any manner. As against this citizen's right to become member of a cooperative society is not his fundamental right but merely a statutory right and hence governed by the Cooperative Societies Act, Rules and bye-laws of that cooperative society. As such its regulation by the State act or intervention is not ruled out or found to be repugnant to any provisions of the Constitution. Thus when a group of like minded citizens get together and form co-operative society than that society has right to be registered except it is found to be suffering from one of the three handicaps envisaged in proviso to Section 4 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961. 25. Thus when a group of like minded citizens get together and form co-operative society than that society has right to be registered except it is found to be suffering from one of the three handicaps envisaged in proviso to Section 4 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961. 25. Thus bearing in mind the prevalent position of law, one can safely deduce that leave alone individual members of the existing society, even the existing society did not have any statutory right to lodge formal or substantial objections against consideration of the proposal for new societies based upon the safeguard provided under proviso to Section 4 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961. 26. The aforesaid logical deduction from the plain reading of the language of the statutory provisions of Section 4 to 9 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 read with the decisions of the apex court gets further strengthened from plain reading of the provisions of appeal as laid down in Section 153 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961. The section 153 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961 provides appeal against orders made under various provisions of Cooperative Societies Act including order under Section 4 and 9. The sub-section (4) of Section 153 period for two month limitation from the date of the communication of the order sought to be impugned in the appeal. Now no provisions either in Section 4 to 9 or in Rules governing the registration it is provided that order of registration is also to be communicated to the existing societies or to any objector as if it was an order made in any adjudicatory or quasi judicial proceedings. In short the entire exercise of considering registration of proposed societies under Section 4 to 9 is only an administrative exercise to be undertaken by the Registrar and he has to function in accordance with the statutory provision. The process of registration of new society cannot be in any termed to be judicial or quasi judicial so as to envisage an adversarial approach from existing society. 27. The petitioners have placed strong reliance upon the decision of learned single judge of this court in Vachhol Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali in Spl. The process of registration of new society cannot be in any termed to be judicial or quasi judicial so as to envisage an adversarial approach from existing society. 27. The petitioners have placed strong reliance upon the decision of learned single judge of this court in Vachhol Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali in Spl. C.A. 15560 of 2003 and other cognate matters decided on 7.10.2006 (Coram: Akil Kureshi J.) and contended that the members of the existing societies have right independent of their society to oppose the registration and maintain petition. This Court is of the view that petitioners and respondent no. 5 s advocate were not right in their submission as close reading of the said judgment clearly indicate that there cannot be any restrictions in registering more than one societies in area but while registering new societies the registering authority is to take into consider the factors mentioned in the proviso to Section 4 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961 and it shall afford an opportunity to the existing societies in the area to raise their objections against proposed registrations. The learned single judge has in fact observed as under in the said judgment: “17 In case of Zorastrrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Another vs. District Registrar Cooperative societies (Urban) and Others, AIR 2005 SC 2306 , though Hon'ble Supreme Court gave fillip to the concept of right to form association and to be governed by a set of rules that members of the Association may choose, nevertheless recognized that such rules (by-laws) of the society must confirm to statutory provisions. (Emphasis supplied) While hearing these petitions, it is found that large number of cases arise out of existing societies opposing the registration of proposed societies in the same area. At the time when Registering Authority is considering such applications, existing societies are not granted any hearing. Eventually, when registration is granted to a new society, existing societies carry the issue further in appeal and revision. The appeal and revision are entertained at their instance and this Court also has been entertaining the petitions at the instance of such societies. Thus by necessity as well as convention, locus-standi of such existing societies to question grant of such registration to a new society has been recognized. Such societies, however enjoy no right of being heard before the application of the rival societies are permitted. Thus by necessity as well as convention, locus-standi of such existing societies to question grant of such registration to a new society has been recognized. Such societies, however enjoy no right of being heard before the application of the rival societies are permitted. To my mind, this is somewhat of contradictory situation. If an existing society has a right to appeal against the registration granted to a new society, such society must also have a right to be heard before the application of new society for registration is granted. This would be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. This would also be in larger interest since society would be at the outset in a position to place material on record for consideration of Registering Authority. As already noted section 4 of the said Act provides that if in the opinion of the Registrar, registration of a society may have an adverse effect upon any society, it shall not be registered. This aspect has been further highlighted in Government Resolution dated 18-7-2003. It is provided inter-alia that it should be ensured that in the same village in the same category not more than one society should be registered. This rule is not inviolable and for good reasons exceptions can be made particularly if it is found that registering another society would have no adverse effect on the existing society. Nevertheless existing society would have a right to establish before the authorities that such registration should not be granted. 18.1 Considering these aspects of the matter, it would be appropriate to permit the existing societies operating in the same field to raise their objections and to be heard (not necessarily in person) before applications of new societies (covered under said Government Resolution dated 18-07.2003) in the same village/group villages are decided by the Registering Authority. For the above purpose it would not be possible to identify the society which may face ultimate adverse effect, it would be appropriate that the Registering authority upon receipt of application for registration of a new society exhibits a copy of such application on prominent place in the office for a period of 10 days which would enable other societies to raise their objections, if any. In response to such exhibition of notice if any objections are raised before registering authority, same should be taken into account before deciding the application for registration of new society. It is however made clear that only by virtue of raising objections, the objector would not ipso facto enjoy a right to be heard or appeal against the order which may be passed and such rights will be governed on the basis of facts arising in individual cases. (Emphasis supplied) Thus in the above decision also the learned single judge after recording that “Eventually when registration is granted to a new society , existing societies carry the issue further in appeal and revision. The appeal and revision are entertained at their instance and this Court also has been entertaining the petitions at the instance of such societies. Thus by necessity as well as convention locus-standi of such existing societies to question grant of registration to a new society has been recognized. Such societies however, enjoy no right of being heard before the application of the rival society is permitted. To my mind, this is somewhat of contradictory situation. If an existing society has right to appeal against the registration granted to a new society, such society must also have right to be heard before the application of new society for registration is granted” (emphasis supplied) and also after recording that:- “17.1 Thus even while recognizing that the existing statutory provisions as well as Government guidelines provide sufficient safeguard for consideration of applications for grant of registration of societies to ensure that the implementation of such guidelines is fair and that procedure is transparent, certain directives are necessary.” Read into Section 4 right of the existing societies to lodge their objections against registration of new society in the area and the obligation upon the Registering authority to take their objections into consideration while deciding applications for registration from new societies. In my view this judgment does not recognize any right, to object or to be heard against proposal for registration of new societies, into the individual members of existing societies at all. In my view this judgment does not recognize any right, to object or to be heard against proposal for registration of new societies, into the individual members of existing societies at all. The learned single judge of this court has merely read into the provisions of Section 4 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961 existing societies' right to file objections to be considered by the Registering Authorities as their appeals, revisions and writ petitions, against granting of registration are entertained by necessity or convention. But on the strength of this judgment individual members of the existing societies cannot claim any rights, which is said to be recognized by the learned single judge in the existing society only. 28. The petitioners and respondent no. 5's advocate relied upon two decisions of learned single judge of this court in case of Sureshbhai Babubhai Sunara vs. Ahmedabad District Co-op. Bank Ltd. 2003 (4) GLR 3707 and in case of Jayantilal Shanabhai Shah and others v. Ambikaben Shivshankar Trivedi and Another, AIR 2003 Gujarat 58. In these two petitions the facts were different and members' right were directly jeopardized. In case of Ambikaben (supra) AIR 2003 Gujarat 58 the members were relying upon general body resolution dated 25.12.1996 for resisting the managing committee's resolution dated 25.2.1997 in compromising the Lavad Suit in question. The society had filed Lavad Suits against the encroaching members for removal of the encroachment and as per resolution dated 15.12.1996, the general body of the society had resolved not to compromise suits or withdraw any legal proceedings without there being any approval from the general body of the society by way of resolution passed in general body of the society. This resolution of 25.12.1996 was ignored by the managing committee of the society and managing committee of the society passed resolution on 25.2.1997 for compromising the Lavad Suits and regularizing the encroachment on payment of certain amount to be paid by encroachers within stipulated time limit and the Board of Nominee relying upon that resolution of 25.2.1997 passed an order on 25.2.1997 permitting the compromise and disposing of the Suits. When this decision of the board of nominees was assailed in appeal before the Gujarat Cooperative Tribunal, it rejected the same on the ground that the members were not parties to the suit and hence that order of tribunal dated 31.3.2000 was subject matter of challenge in the matter whereon the decision is given by this Court. Now the members who were aggrieved by the decision of the board of nominees, acting upon the resolution of the managing committee were right in agitating that contrary to the entire societies' decision by way of resolution dated 25.12.1996 the Lavad Suits could not have been compromised. Thus the fact in that case was sufficient for entitling the members to bring action against the managing committee of society and challenging order of Tribunal rejecting their appeal on the ground that they were not parties to the suit. . Whereas in the instant case, in the first instance, the entire society i.e. existing society have accorded their approval to their Chairman, President in issuance of no objection for registering the new societies. It is not the case of the petitioner that the existing society, as a body corporate, have any grievances, or they have made any objection. In light of this, the decision cited would be of no avail to the petitioners. So far as the case of Suresh B. Sonara is concerned, there the facts of case go to show that the bank was holding decree against the property of the members who was enjoying the property and the society in the suit filed by bank did not defend case resulting into jeopardizing the property held by the member. Hence, in the situation, the Court granted permission and issued direction entitling the petitioner, individual member, to challenge the decree and order as it was directly affecting the individual members' property. Thus reliance upon this judgment for justifying the locus-standi on the part of the petitioners is not of any avail to the petitioners. 29. The section 37 of the Gujarat Co-Operative Societies Act 1961, as it is stated herein above makes registered society to be a body corporate and once the society is registered the individual members cannot, independent of said body corporate, exercise any right conferred upon the society as such. 29. The section 37 of the Gujarat Co-Operative Societies Act 1961, as it is stated herein above makes registered society to be a body corporate and once the society is registered the individual members cannot, independent of said body corporate, exercise any right conferred upon the society as such. Section 4 reading with the learned single judge's judgment in case of Vachhal Dudh Utpadak (supra) also would go to show that right, to object to registration of new society in the field or area, if any , than that right is only in the existing society , the body corporate and hence individual members have no right to challenge registration especially when their own society has not only not objected but rather approved action of their president secretary to issue 'no objection' in favour of the new societies' registration. In the instant case, the existing society being Shri Patanvaav Juth Vikas Karyakari Sahkari Mandli Ltd. so far as Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 and 5585 of 2011 is concerned and Shri Kalana Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. so far as Special Civil Application No. 5586 of 2011 is concerned, are body corporate in their own stead and hence capable of agitating the grievances if any against the registration of respondent no. 4 societies in appropriate forum. The two existing societies in these three petitions have admittedly not authorized the present petitioners in any manner to bring this petition challenging the registration of new society respondent No. 4 in these three petitions. The two existing societies whose membership is claimed by the present petitioners of these three petitions have admittedly not filed any objection before the Competent Authority rather fact reveals that they have ratified the action of their president/chairman/secretary in issuing “letters of No Objection” in registering the new societies. 30. The decisions of the apex court cited by the learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 newly registered societies also go to support this proposition of law that once a society is registered than it enjoys all rights conferred upon it under the statute as “corporate body” and its individual members have no independent right to bring action in their individual members capacity for enforcing rights which are only conferred upon that body corporate. 4 newly registered societies also go to support this proposition of law that once a society is registered than it enjoys all rights conferred upon it under the statute as “corporate body” and its individual members have no independent right to bring action in their individual members capacity for enforcing rights which are only conferred upon that body corporate. The apex court has in case of Daman Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1985 SC 973 observed as under: “11 The next submission of the learned counsel was that section 13(8), (9) and (10) did not make express provision for the issue of notice to the members of the concerned Co-operative Societies and were, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice. He argued that in the absence of any provision, the rules of natural justice may be read into the provisions and notice to the members of the affected societies was imperative. Otherwise, he argued, members of one society would be forced against their will and without being heard to associate themselves with members of another society. We have no hesitation in rejecting this submission also. Once a person becomes a Member of a co-operative society, he loses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the by-laws. He must act and speak through the society or rather, the society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the society as a body. So if the statute which authorizes compulsory amalgamation of co-operative societies provides for notice to the societies concerned, the requirement of natural justice is fully satisfied. The notice to the society will be deemed as notice to all its members. That is why section 13(9)(a) provides for the issue of notice to the societies and not to individual members. S.13(9)(b), however, provides the members also with an opportunity to be heard if they desire to be heard. Notice to individual members of a co-operative society, in our opinion, is opposed to the very status of a co-operative society as a body corporate and is, therefore, unnecessary. S.13(9)(b), however, provides the members also with an opportunity to be heard if they desire to be heard. Notice to individual members of a co-operative society, in our opinion, is opposed to the very status of a co-operative society as a body corporate and is, therefore, unnecessary. We do not consider it necessary to further elaborate the matter except to point out that a member who objects to the proposed amalgamation within the prescribed time is given, by section 31(11), the option to walk-out, as it were, by withdrawing his share, deposits or loans as the case may be.” In another case sited at the bar by the learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 societies in case of State of U.P. and Another vs. C.O.D. Chheoki Employees' Co-op. Society Ltd. and Others, AIR 1997 SC 1413 the apex court has reiterated the principles that no one has fundamental right to be a member of cooperative society but once he becomes member than the society would govern his rights qua the society and its management and the individual members cannot bring challenge on behalf of the society claiming infringement of their fundamental rights. 31. The Court cannot accept the petitioners claim of any violation of their fundamental right or their collective suffering on account of registration of new society as it was sought to be canvassed that on account of new society in the same area of operation unhealthy competition would have adverse impact upon the members, like the petitioners, of the existing societies. This aspect was required to be considered by the existing societies in their general body meeting and there could have been resolution that in such a case society should take appropriate action. But individual members like present petitioners, against their own existing societies' resolution cannot be permitted to bring and maintain action or petition challenging registration of the new societies. A catena of the judgments goes to show that Courts have no power to add or supply or read into the plain statutory provisions. The apex court has in case of Union of India vs. Devki Nandan Agrawal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 323 held that Courts have no power to rewrite the statutory provisions. A catena of the judgments goes to show that Courts have no power to add or supply or read into the plain statutory provisions. The apex court has in case of Union of India vs. Devki Nandan Agrawal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 323 held that Courts have no power to rewrite the statutory provisions. The following list of authorities go to support the proposition of law that plain language of the statute must be in absence of any ambiguity must hold the field irrespective of its results. Namely (1) Sathidevi vs. Prasanna (2010) 5 SCC 622 , (2) AIR 1981 SC 1610 , (3) AIR 2007 SC 1956 , (4) (2009)13 SCC 22 and (5) (2007)3 SCC 720 . 32. The petitioners' challenge to the delegation of power as per the notification dated 31.08.1981 is also do not appear to be tenable in eye of law. By virtue of the provisions of Section 276 the earlier transfer of functions are specifically saved. The petitioners have conveniently ignored the provisions of the Section 162 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 where under it is specifically provided that such functions could be delegated to panchayats and this being administrative function it could be done by the committee and it could not be challenged as such on account of the provisions of 174 and 271 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act 1993. Assuming without holding that there is some substance in the submissions of the petitioners than also the present petition is not tenable in eye of law and hence it would be of no avail to them. 33. The Court need not examine the integrity of irregularity in according the registration to the new societies as under article 226 of the Constitution such disputed questions of facts cannot be examined at the instance of those petitioners who have no locus-standi to file the petition. 34. The Court needs to be mindful of the fact that none of the memos of petitions in three petitions contain any whisper about non viability of the new society nor have the petitioners indicated anywhere in the entire memo as to what real prejudice is likely to be caused to the members of the existing societies. 34. The Court needs to be mindful of the fact that none of the memos of petitions in three petitions contain any whisper about non viability of the new society nor have the petitioners indicated anywhere in the entire memo as to what real prejudice is likely to be caused to the members of the existing societies. The pleading of members or delegation of members would be of no avail to the present petitioners as had there been so the challenge to the registration would be available to the existing society. It can be said that they will also have no right to file appeal under section 153 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The Court has not adverted to it in great detail as in case the existing societies are passing general resolution indicating that No Objection was given fraudulently than there could be some semblance of right in them to file appeal that to only after they establish their right to file appeal. In light of the learned single judge's order in Vachhal Dudh Utpadak (supra) if the existing societies have any right to file appeal than they may do so and this right to challenge the registration would not be affected by passing of this order in any manner. The democratic process must be given its full play and the course available to the members of existing societies of mustering enough support within their society for passing appropriate resolution and challenging new registration by and/or on behalf of society with new resolution of society then, this order could not be any impediment in their way to so challenge by invoking section 153 of the Cooperative Societies Act. 35. The Court is of the view that the contentions of the learned advocate for the respondent no. 4, that the petitions deserve to be dismissed on account of the fact that the petitioners are litigating on behalf of the persons in power in Rajkot District Cooperative Bank and that they did not come with clean hands, cannot be brushed aside. The facts narrate herein above go to show that this court has no other alternative but to accept that the petitioners have not file these petition with correct facts. It was bounden duty cast upon the petitioners to put forward all the facts at initial stage in their true perspective. The facts narrate herein above go to show that this court has no other alternative but to accept that the petitioners have not file these petition with correct facts. It was bounden duty cast upon the petitioners to put forward all the facts at initial stage in their true perspective. It would not be out of place to mention that non existence of “No Objection Letter” was in term pressed into service as it is reflected in the ex-parte order dated 28.04.2011 which deserve to be reproduced as under: “Common Oral order: “Notice pending admission returnable on 6.5.2011. Learned advocate for the petitioner in this group of the petitions have state under instructions that, the existing society did not issue any No objection so as to have registration of the proposed society, yet the committee concerned has proceeded on the basis , as if , there was no objection on record. This being a statement going to the root of the issuance of registration, it is appropriate that the status quo as on date qua registration of Respondent no. 4 be maintained by all the concerned. Direct Service permitted.” The learned advocate for the respondent no. 3 and 4's objection for adjournment on 06.05.2011, on the ground of order of status quo being operative which was passed on the basis of incorrect statement was also recorded by this court while accepting request of the learned advocates for the petitioners for adjournment. The learned advocate for the petitioner contended from the averments made in the memo of the petitions that they have specifically contended that no general body meeting of the existing societies had taken place and no resolution is passed for issuing no objection to the registration of the new societies. This Court has in this judgment elaborately set out the averments on this aspect hence it need not be repeated. The Ad Interim Order dated 28.04.2011 and earlier discussion persuades this court to say that the contentions of learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 and 3 cannot be brushed aside as baseless. 36. This Court has in this judgment elaborately set out the averments on this aspect hence it need not be repeated. The Ad Interim Order dated 28.04.2011 and earlier discussion persuades this court to say that the contentions of learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 and 3 cannot be brushed aside as baseless. 36. The Court is of the view that the entire tenor of the challenge to the order dated 31.03.2011 by the minority members of the existing societies coupled with the fact that their own societies have not raised any objection at any point of time to registration of new societies and the attitude of the respondent no,. 5 District bank are sufficient to persuade this court that the contention of the learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 in respect of these petition being Proxy litigation also cannot be brushed aside. 37. The petitioner No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 has though stated on oath decided to hide the factum of he himself floating the cooperative society. Now this factor was well within the knowledge of the petitioner, and, therefore, in my view, the grievances made against the petitioners with regard to their lacking of bona-fide in filing the petition would also require appropriate consideration. The fact remains to be noted that these petitions were filed invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India. Issuance of the writ of mandamus or appreciate writ/order or any other direction was sought to be invoked by Article 226 and when Article 226 is invoked by the petitioner it can be said that petitioners were invoking equitable discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners were under heavy obligation to approach with clean hands and with absolute probity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manohar Lal (D) by LRs. vs. Ugrasen (D) by LRs. and Others, AIR 2010 SC 2210 observed in paras-47 and 48 are: “Para 47: The conclusion of all the above discussion is as under: (i) That the original Writ Petitioners-Copywriters are mere licensees. (ii) Though the Rules have been formulated by the Government for awarding these licenses the Rules do not spell out an absolute control over the working of these Copywriters. The Rules merely pertain to the grant of licenses and control of those licences, however, did not control the working and duties of the Copywriters. (ii) Though the Rules have been formulated by the Government for awarding these licenses the Rules do not spell out an absolute control over the working of these Copywriters. The Rules merely pertain to the grant of licenses and control of those licences, however, did not control the working and duties of the Copywriters. (iii) The Copywriters do not do any Government duty. They are merely required to copy the deeds which are to be presented for registration. Though the filing of a fresh copy is necessary for registration, the making of that copy does not amount to a Government duty. (iv) The Copywriters are not controlled in the matters of their attendance, working hours, leave, pension and output of work etc., by the Government. (v) The Copywriters are not on the establishment under the Rules, more particularly the Rules formulated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. (vi) The Copywriters are not paid from the Government coffers. On the other hand they are paid by the private parties who required those copies for Registration of the deeds. Therefore, there is no fiduciary relationship between the Government and the Copywriters nor is the government responsible for any such payment. (vii) In short the grant of licence for copy writing does not amount to creating a service. Hence there is no master-servant relationship between the Copywriters and the Government nor can they said to be Government servants entitling them to so-called equal treatment with the other Government servants. (viii) The High Court has erred in directing the creation of service and for that purpose framing the Rules as also providing the nomenclature for such a service. In that the High Court has travelled beyond the scope of the original application and the writ petition.” “Para 48: The appeals thus deserve to be allowed and they are accordingly allowed. The common judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Tribunal is restored. Under these circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.” 38. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in the case of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1307, observed in Para 46 as under: “46. In the case on hand, the appellant has not come forward with all the facts. Under these circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.” 38. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in the case of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1307, observed in Para 46 as under: “46. In the case on hand, the appellant has not come forward with all the facts. He has chosen to state facts in the manner suited to him by giving an impression to the Writ Court that an instrumentality of State (SAIL) has not followed doctrine of natural justice and fundamental principles of fair procedure. This is not proper. Hence, on that ground alone, the appellant cannot claim equitable relief. But we have also considered the merits of the case and even on merits, we are convinced that no case has been made out by him to interfere with the action of SAIL, or the order passed by the High Court.” 39. In case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2007 SC (Supp.) 1223, the Hon'ble Apex Court has said invocation of Article 226 is an abuse of process of the Court. The Apex Court in case of Ram Deo Bhandari and Others vs. Election Commission of India and Others, AIR 1995 SC 853 has held that, non-disclosing of the correct facts before the court would amount playing fraud upon the Court, and, therefore such an attempt needs to be heavily deprecated. This Court has not opinion upon the allegations of irregularities if any as the petitioners have no locus-standi to agitate it and when the respondent No. 4 society have indicated in terms of viability and submitted that the existing society is not likely to be jeopardized in any manner and when existing society have not come forward in any manner to support the petitioners and the petitioners only filed objections for creating impediment and, therefore, the same objections cannot be permitted to be undertaken. Therefore, in my view it is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of the Court which cannot be permitted under Article 226 and hence, the petitions are dismissed with costs. 40. Therefore, in my view it is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of the Court which cannot be permitted under Article 226 and hence, the petitions are dismissed with costs. 40. Learned advocate for the petitioners, at this stage, requested that the ad-interim order of status quo be continued for respondent No. 4 so as to enable the petitioner to file appeal challenging the order, Shri Rao, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 has vehemently objected to relying upon the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case reported in 2002 (1) GLH 443 and submitted that once the petition is dismissed the interim relief cannot be continued. The judgment of the Apex Court was also relied upon in case of Shiv Shankar and Others vs. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Another, AIR 1995 (Supp.) 2 SCC 726. Shri Pahwa, learned advocate, at this stage, submitted that judgments cited would be not applicable as there the Court would not incline to adjudicate the controversy and relegated that part on account of availability of alternative remedy, I am of the view that when the petitioners have approached individually, and when this court has held that they are in no way entitled to bring action of challenging registration of respondent No. 4 society as the existing society have not supported in any manner their own cause indicating in any manner existing society are agreed, then the continuation of status quo order which results into restraining the respondent No. 4 society from carrying out activities would amount perpetuating and/or extending the order at the behest of party who has not been said to have a semblance of right to challenge the said action, therefore, the request to extent status quo for a limited period not accepted. Petitions dismissed.