Judgment S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—These two petitions contain challenge to the nomination of Government’s representative and nomination of Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on the board of the Gujarat State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited (herein after referred to as the “Bank” for the sake of brevity) in exercise of power conferred upon the State under Section 80(1)of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the “Co-operative Societies Act” for the sake of brevity). As both these petitions are essentially containing same challenge and their facts are almost identical they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment & order. 2. Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under. 2.1 Special Civil Application No. 223 of 2011 came to be filed by the Gujarat State Agriculture & Rural Development Bank through its Managing Director and 13 others who have been elected as members of the Board of Directors of the Bank. The Bank is registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and is classified to be a Specified Co-operative Society as defined under Section 74 (C) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. The Board of Directors of the Bank consist of 17 elected directors, one director, i.e. nominee of Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Limited, the Apex Bank and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State. Thus total 19 members are forming Board of the Bank. The terms of Board of Directors of the Bank was coming to an end hence election of Board of Directors was announced by the City Dy. Collector, Ahmedabad. The election of the Board of Directors was held by the City Dy. Collector, Ahmedabad, and the result was declared on 14/8/2010. The Managing Director of the Bank addressed a communication dated 15/9/2010 requesting City Dy. Collector to give consent for holding meeting of newly elected Board of Directors for electing Chairman & Vice Chairman of the Bank. It is alleged that for three months no consent was accorded and on December 15, 2010, the meeting was directed to be convened on 5/1/2011. The Managing Director of the Bank therefore issued agenda notice indicating that the election for the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman was to be held on January 05, 2011 at 3.00 pm, in the Board Room of the Bank. One gentleman called Mr. The Managing Director of the Bank therefore issued agenda notice indicating that the election for the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman was to be held on January 05, 2011 at 3.00 pm, in the Board Room of the Bank. One gentleman called Mr. Ishwarbhai Chaudhari approached Learned Nominee of the registrar by preferring dispute under Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act which came to be marked as Dispute No. 3/2011. The disputant mainly contended that the agenda notice was required to be issued by the Collector and as it was not issued by the Collector, calling of the meeting by Managing Director was unlawful and that for holding election requisite procedure of calling for nomination, scrutiny of nominations etc, was not undertaken; and therefore, the process was assailed as illegal. The application for interim relief was also filed praying order restraining concerned from holding meeting on 5/1/2011. The Learned Nominee of the registrar issued an ad-interim order on 4/1/2011 in terms of Prayer-11(A) of the memo of the application and stayed the said meeting. The petitioners have averred in the petition that those proceedings are under challenge in a separate petition and it would not be appropriate to elaborate on those proceedings on the memo of this petition. The order passed by Learned Nominee came to be assailed in the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal by the Bank by preferring Revision Application no 3 of 2011 which came to be allowed. However the judgment allowing the Revision Application came to be stayed till January 11, 2011. These proceedings have been challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 25 of 2011 and 26 of 2011. This Court, in these two writ petitions, issued direction in its order dated 6/1/2011 and by way of ad-interim relief directed that meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank should be convened on 17/1/2011 at 11.00 am in the board room of Petitioner No. 1 Bank. The agenda notice to this effect was ordered to be issued to all the concerned directors and a public notice was also ordered to be issued in the newspaper, called ‘Gujarat Samachar’. A copy of the order dated 6.01.2011 is at Annexure-E to the petition. The agenda notice to this effect was ordered to be issued to all the concerned directors and a public notice was also ordered to be issued in the newspaper, called ‘Gujarat Samachar’. A copy of the order dated 6.01.2011 is at Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioners have alleged in the memo of the petition that as the directors have allegiance with Indian National Congress, the rival political party in power made all attempts for stalling the election of Chairman and vice chairman so as to get time for engineering defection. The Bank is a Central Bank as defined under Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, and as per the amended provision of sub Section (3) of Section 80 of the Act, State has no authority or power to nominate its representative on the Board. The petitioners came to know through newspaper reports that the Government has nominated Respondent No. 4 and 5 on the Board of their Bank hence they preferred this petition on 12/1/2011. 2.2 As it appears from the record, a mentioning was made before the Division Bench taking up election matters for urgent orders and accordingly the matter was circulated and the Division Bench passed order on 13/1/2011 holding that, prima facie the petition was required to be listed before the single judge of this Court according to the roster for the time being in force and the office was directed to examine it and list the matter before the appropriate bench at the earliest in view of the urgency expressed by learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus this matter was posted before learned Single Judge. This Court on 17/1/2011 (Coram: M.D. Shah, J.) passed detailed order holding that once election process had started the election could not be stayed and it was required to be held on the same day. The alternative prayer of keeping the votes cast by nominated members separately was also not accepted. However it was clarified that whatever transpired during pendency and final disposal of the petition, would be subject to final outcome of this petition and the matter was listed for hearing. The alternative prayer of keeping the votes cast by nominated members separately was also not accepted. However it was clarified that whatever transpired during pendency and final disposal of the petition, would be subject to final outcome of this petition and the matter was listed for hearing. This order was assailed by the petitioners in LPA No. 135 of 2011 in SCA No. 223 of 2011 but the division bench of this Court did not interfere with the order dated 17.01.2011 as the learned single judge had clarified that whatever takes place during pendency and final disposal this petition was subject to final out come of the petition. The LPA No. 135 of 2011 came to be dismissed on 24.11.2011. 2.3 The second matter, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 2177 of 2011 is filed by one of the elected directors and defeated contestant in the election to the post of Chairman in the Bank held on 17.01.2011, challenging Respondent No. 2’s continuation as nominee member of the Board of Directors of the Bank under the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner has mainly relied upon the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act in resisting continuation of Respondent No. 2 as member of the Board of Directors of the Bank. The Respondent No. 2 is said to have been acting as member of the Board of Directors of the Bank in view of provision of Section 80(1) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. That, continuation of Respondent No. 2 as Member of the Board of Directors is contrary to the provision of Section 80(3) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act as the State has not subscribed to any share capital and therefore, the Government has no right to nominate any nominee on the Board of Directors of the Bank and hence Respondent No. 2 cannot function as Member of the Board of Directors of the Bank. The power, even if it is given to the State for appointment as per the by-law of the Bank then also, same by-law is to be governed by provisions of Section 80(3) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, and in this view of the matter the Respondent No. 2’s continuation as Nominee of the State is not permissible. The petitioner has made almost same allegations as are made in another cognate matter. The petitioner has made almost same allegations as are made in another cognate matter. This petition was filed on 15/2/2011, as it is stated herein above as both the petitions contain identical challenges and similar facts they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. A peculiar development occurred during the pendency of the SCA 223 of 2011 deserves to be noted and recorded as it would have vital bearing upon the locus of the present petitions which would be adverted at the appropriate place herein after. The Bank, the first petitioner in the SCA No. 223 of 2011 sent a letter dated 23/1/2011 to its advocate, informing him that as he was aware that the election for the post of chairman and vice chairman was concluded on 17.01.2011, and as the bank has decided to accept the order of the State Government appointing two nominees to the board of directors of the bank, the bank was not interested in pursuing further with the captioned special civil application and hence their advocate was requested to withdraw his appearance on behalf of the bank. The bank also informed the learned Advocate that it was in process of filing a note before the court for withdrawal of the captioned writ petition on behalf of the Bank. In fact the Bank has vide its communication dated 24.01.2011 addressed to the Registrar, Gujarat High Court, indicated in unequivocal language that the petition was sought to be withdrawn by the Bank as the Bank has accepted order of nomination of two persons on its Board, and therefore their request to withdraw from the matter, as there was nothing to argue in the matter, be accepted. Therefore, an allegation was made that as the concerned persons got elected, the Managing Director was directed to withdraw the petition and hence on 28/2/2011 the request was made to treat the Petitioner No. 6 and 10 to be transposed as Respondents. Learned Advocate appearing for them did not objected to it and hence they are transposed as respondents. The Bank’s request for permitting it to withdraw the petition qua it is also hereby accepted and the petition is thus treated to have been withdrawn so far as the Bank is concerned. Learned Advocate appearing for them did not objected to it and hence they are transposed as respondents. The Bank’s request for permitting it to withdraw the petition qua it is also hereby accepted and the petition is thus treated to have been withdrawn so far as the Bank is concerned. Now therefore the petition being SCA 223 of 2011 would survive qua only the remaining petitioners barring those who were permitted to be transposed as respondents. 4. The contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners in both these petitions, as could be culled out from their oral as well as written submissions could be summarized as under :— 4.1. The petitioners have challenged appointment of the Government nominees being contrary to the Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act. The learned Advocate for the petitioners invited this court’s attention to some of the statutory provisions vital for consideration of the Court. The provisions of sub Section (3) of Section 80 of the Act has been introduced in the Act by Gujarat Act No. 1 of 2008. It may be noted that sub Section (3) of Section 80 begins with non-obstante Clause which states that notwithstanding anything contained either in the Act, rule or in the by-laws, only one director can be appointed in the State Co-operative Bank or Central Co-operative Bank. The Central Bank is defined in Clause (3) of Section 2 of the Act, which means a Co-operative bank, the objectives of which includes creation of fund to be loaned to other societies. The by-laws of the bank provides for raising of funds and those funds raised by the bank are used for providing loan to other societies. The contention of giving loan by bank to other societies stand admitted as the said fact has been admitted in the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent No. 6. Therefore, the bank is raising funds and is giving loans to other societies is not a disputed one. Therefore, the status of the bank as a Central Co-operative Bank, is undisputed one, rather it is admitted. Sub-section (1) of Section 80 empowers the Government to appoint 3 nominees on the Board of Directors of the Society where the State Government has given guarantee. Therefore, the status of the bank as a Central Co-operative Bank, is undisputed one, rather it is admitted. Sub-section (1) of Section 80 empowers the Government to appoint 3 nominees on the Board of Directors of the Society where the State Government has given guarantee. The facts undisputed are that the bank has raised loan from NABARD and given a guarantee, therefore, in absence of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act, State would have power to nominate 3 directors on the Board. However, said power stand abrogated in view of the special provision made in Sub-section (3) of 80 of the Act which is enacted at latter point of time, i.e. by Act No. 1 of 2008. It is settled principle of law that when there is a special power made, the general power has to give away and therefore Sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act cannot have an application in case of the Central Co-operative Bank and more particularly, the legislative intention is clear as the Section starts with non-obstante clause. 4.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners while answering the contention raised by the respondent, more particularly by the Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State that, Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act is meant for credit Co-operative structures and therefore, this language of Section has to be read in context thereof, submitted that the interpretation of statute permits aid of other provision of the statues in the name of harmonious construction only when the language was unclear, ambiguous or the interpretation whereof results into chaotic and absurd situation. In the present case, as the language of the Section is clear, and unambiguous no additional or external aid is required for interpretation of the provisions. The wordings ‘co-operative credit structure’ nowhere figures either in the definition of central bank or in Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act. When Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act was enacted by the legislature, it was very well aware of definition of the Central Bank. If the legislature wanted to have the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 restricted to a ‘cooperative credit structure,’ the legislature would have couched the Sub-section (3) of Section 80 accordingly or would have provided another definition to Central Bank. If the legislature wanted to have the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 restricted to a ‘cooperative credit structure,’ the legislature would have couched the Sub-section (3) of Section 80 accordingly or would have provided another definition to Central Bank. It cannot be said that the legislature was not aware of definition of the Central Bank when the Act No. 1 of 2008 was enacted. Therefore, submissions made on behalf of the State that Sub-section (3) of Section 80 is required to be read so as to embrace within its meaning only the societies falling within the definition of the ‘cooperative credit structure’ is not tenable in law and hence it deserves to be rejected. That would be an addition to the language of Sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act. The State wants to read Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act by State Co-operative Bank or Central Co-operative Bank which would cover definition of the Co-operative credit structure. The words “which would cover Co-operative credit structure” are additions the State wants to make in interpreting said provision which is not permissible. 4.3 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has further contended that, the respondent’s contentions in respect of the maintainability of the writ petitions are not tenable in eye of law. The provisions of Section 140-U speaks about dispute of election. The chapter-11-A specifically deals with election of members of the committee of specified Co-operative society. The bank is a specified Co-operative society. However, Section 145-A to Section 145-Y applies to the election of committee members. Section 145-Z applies to the election of office bearers. Election of members and election of office bearers are two entirely different facts. Officer is defined in Clause (14) of Section 2 which includes the President and Vice President of the Society. Therefore, the provisions of election of office bearers is provided under Section 145-Z of the Act. The legislature is clear in its legislative intent while making provision of election dispute. Section 145-U provides that any dispute relating to election shall be referred to the Tribunal. It may be noted that the term ‘election’ has been defined in Clause (b) of Section 145-B which reads, “election’ means, the election of a member or members of the committee of a specified Co-operative society”. Section 145-U provides that any dispute relating to election shall be referred to the Tribunal. It may be noted that the term ‘election’ has been defined in Clause (b) of Section 145-B which reads, “election’ means, the election of a member or members of the committee of a specified Co-operative society”. Therefore, Section 145-U is required to be read in context of definition provided in Clause (b) of Section 145-B of the Act. Section 145-Z of the Act provides that the said Section will apply only to the election of officers by members of the committee of the society belonging to categories specified in Section 74-C. Therefore, the legislative intent is clear that Chapter 11-A is made to control the conduct of election of members of the committee of the specified Co-operative societies and for which Section 145-A to 145-Y have been enacted; whereas Section 145-Z is a special provision for election of officers of the committee. The term “officer” is not defined in Chapter 11-A whereas term “election” is defined in Chapter 11-A itself. The term “officer” is defined in Clause 14 of Section 2 which includes President and the Vice President and therefore, no election of office bearers can be challenged before Election Tribunal, i.e., Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal under Section 145-U of the Act. Therefore, said submissions made by the respondents are not tenable. 4.4 Learned Advocate for the petitioners has further contended that the respondents have made submissions which on face of it is unwarranted and untenable. The respondent has stated that the petitioners have challenged virtually election of the Chairman. In fact the writ petition was filed prior to holding of elections in question. Appointment of the Government nominees cannot be challenged under Section 145-U of the Act. The Tribunal cannot go into that issue. The Tribunal is not clothed with power to decide validity or otherwise of appointment of the nomination by Government under Section (3) of Section 80 of the Act. The respondent could not have raised this contention. Section 145-U of the Act is clear which embraces dispute of election of members and not the office bearers. The respondents are making submissions by substituting the word “member” by word “officers” which is not intended or contemplated by the legislature. Both the words are different and not interchangeable. The respondent could not have raised this contention. Section 145-U of the Act is clear which embraces dispute of election of members and not the office bearers. The respondents are making submissions by substituting the word “member” by word “officers” which is not intended or contemplated by the legislature. Both the words are different and not interchangeable. 4.5 The petition in SCA 2177 of 2011 has challenged continuation of Respondent No. 2 therein as nominee member on the Board of the Bank as in light of the clear provisions of Section 80(3) the Respondent No. 2 could not have continued as member nominee on the board of the bank and his continuation is prayed to be set aside. 4.6 As could be culled out from the grounds mentioned in the petition being SCA 2177 of 2011 the Respondent No. 2’s continuation as nominee-member and as such his participation in the election to the post of Chairman and vice chairman is also assailed on the ground that the State Government has not made and fresh order nominating Respondent No. 2 as its nominee on the Board of the Bank after newly elected members constituted the Board and the old Government Resolution dated 7.1.1994 would not entitle the Respondent No. 2 to continue to act as nominee director on the Board of the Bank. 5. The contentions of the learned Advocate for the respondents in both these petitions, as could be culled out from their oral as well as written submissions could be summarized as under :— 5.1 The learned Advocate for the respondent state contended that the main question of law which has come up for adjudication before the Court is the question as to whether the Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank would fall within the restrictions imposed under Section 80(3) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. In the submission of learned Advocate for the State, the sub Section (3) in Section 80 is added by the Legislature by Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Gujarat Act No. 1/2008) which is passed by the Gujarat State Legislature to deal with the Banks dealing with the Short Term Agricultural Credit and to implement the recommendations of the “Vaidyanathan Committee” with regard to such Banks only. The Land Development Bank can only provide Long Term Agricultural Credit and recommendations of ‘Vaidyanathan Committee’ for Land Development Bank are still under consideration of the Central Government. These facts are clear and apparent from the following facts. (a) The Structure of Agricultural Finance in the Country.—it is submitted that in the entire country, the agricultural finance is governed in two categories viz.— (i) Short term agricultural finance, and (ii) Long term agricultural finance. It is submitted that the Parliament, with a view of regulating Co-operative credit and other facilities for the promotion and development of agriculture, enacted the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development act, 1981 (NABARD Act). Under the said Act, long term agricultural finance and short term agricultural finance are statutorily earmarked and bifurcated. In accordance with the scheme of the NABARD Act, there are two State level Co-operative societies rendering agricultural finance as under: (i) The Gujarat State Co-operative Bank – providing for short term agricultural finance, in a three tier structure, and (ii) The Gujarat State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank – providing for long term agricultural finance in an unilateral structure. It is submitted that the NABARD Act defines ‘State Co-operative Bank’ under Section 2 (u) as under. “S. 2(u) ‘State Co-operative Bank’ means the Principal Co-operative society in a State, the primary object of which is the financing of other Co-operative societies in the State. It is submitted that the NABARD Act defines ‘State Co-operative Bank’ under Section 2 (u) as under. “S. 2(u) ‘State Co-operative Bank’ means the Principal Co-operative society in a State, the primary object of which is the financing of other Co-operative societies in the State. Provided that in addition to such Principal society in a State, or where there is no such principal society in a State, the State Government may declare any one or more Co-operative societies carrying on business in that State to be also or to be a State Co-operative Bank or State Co-operative Banks within the meaning of this definition.” It is submitted that the NABARD Act defines ‘State Land Development Bank’ under Section 2(v) as under: “S. 2(v) - ‘State Land Development Bank’ means the Co-operative Society which the principal land development bank (by whatever name called) in a State and which has as its primary object the providing of long term finance for agriculture development: Provided that, in addition to such principal and development bank in a State or where there is no such bank in a State, the State Government may declare any Co-operative society carrying on business in that State and authorized by the by-laws of such Co-operative society to provide long term finance for agricultural development to be also or to be a State land development bank within the meaning of this definition” (emphasis supplied) It is submitted that the Bank with which the present petition relates is ‘State Land Development Bank’ as defined under Section 2(v) of the NABARD Act. There is no dispute between the parties on this aspect. It is further submitted that Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 also categorically and statutorily envisages a different and distinct existence of land development banks which are governed by a separate Chapter Viz. Chapter. XI. In the said Chapter, the term ‘State Land Development Bank’ is defined in Section 117 (3) which reads as under: “S. 117(3)—(State Land Development) means a (Land Development Bank) for the whole of he State of Gujarat and recognized as such by the Registrar.” It is thus clear that the short term agricultural credit is dispensed through three tier structure viz. State Co-operative Bank, District Co-operative Band and Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies. As against this, the long term agricultural credit is dispensed though the Land Development Bank. State Co-operative Bank, District Co-operative Band and Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies. As against this, the long term agricultural credit is dispensed though the Land Development Bank. In some States, even land development banks follow three tier structure. However, in the State of Gujarat, there is no three tier structure for land development bank. The structure of long term Co-operative credit is given by way of a chart in Vaidyanathan Committee’s report is annexed with this written submission. It is submitted that thus it is clear that so far as the present Land Development Bank is concerned, it has an unitary structure and does not have federal structure or a three tier structure (in which other Co-operative societies become the members). Learned Counsel for the State has further discussed about Vaidyanathan Committee, in the written submissions as under: “It is submitted that with a view to provide for a statutory mechanism in the State Legislature for governing short term and long term agricultural finance, the Central Government had appointed a Committee to give its recommendations known as “Vaidyanathan Committee”. The said committee had given in its various suggestions for statutory amendment sin the loan Co-operative societies Act both with respect to short term agricultural finance (through the State Co-operative Banks) and also long term agricultural finance (through the Land Development Banks) in its report. It is further submitted that as far as short term agricultural finance is concerned, a three-tier system is envisaged. Short term agricultural finance is provided to farmers under the aforesaid three tier system through the agency of State Co-operative Bank. The agricultural finance released by the BABARD comes to the Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Ltd, which has, as its members, District level Central Co-operative Banks. Such District Central Co-operative Banks have, as it members, other primary level credit Co-operative societies. The agricultural finance coming through the State Co-operative Bank goes to such District Co-operative Banks which, in turn, give such agricultural finance to its member primary credit Co-operative societies within the District. Such primary credit Co-operative societies have, as their respective members, individual farmers who avail of such agricultural finance. There were various recommendation given by the Vaidyanathan Committee with respect to short term agricultural finance. Such primary credit Co-operative societies have, as their respective members, individual farmers who avail of such agricultural finance. There were various recommendation given by the Vaidyanathan Committee with respect to short term agricultural finance. The state of Gujarat has accepted the said recommendations and has entered into a tripartite agreement executed by and between the Central Government, the NABARD and the State of Gujarat which incorporated an obligation upon the State Government to suitably amend the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 so as to bring the same in tune with the report and recommendations of the Vaidyanathan Committee. The Government of India, based upon recommendations of the Vaidyanathan Committee, has announced a revival package for Co-operative societies to be implemented through NABARD. As per the said package, primary level agricultural credit societies, district central Co-operative banks, and State Co-operative banks get the benefit of package for compensating the losses in their balance sheet as on 31st March 2004. It is submitted that a tripartite agreement is entered into by and between the Government of India, the State of Gujarat and NABARD on 21st December 2006. The relevant part of the said tripartite agreement is as under: PREAMBLE: “1. Whereas it is considered necessary as a national priority to affirm the following objectives for revival and restructuring of the rural Co-operative credit structure (CCS), comprising the State Co-operative Banks (St.CBs), Central Co-operative Banks (CCBs) and Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACs) including LAMPS, MPCs and FSS affiliated to CCBs on a sustainable basis” NOW THEREFORE IT IS AGREED BYAND AMONG THE PARTIES AS FOLOWS: “8. On the execution of the present MOU by all parties. (a) NABARD will recommend to Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as RBI) to keep in abeyance the ongoing regulatory actions initiated against StCB or CCB in the State for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 11 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (as application to Co-operative societies) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BR Act’) during the period of implementation of the package, which in any case shall not exceed three years. (b) NABARD as the principal implementing and pass through agency, shall arrange for— (i) conduct of special audit of PACS, DCCBs and StCBs, (ii) designing and providing assistance for installation of a common accounting system, (iii) Devising proper internal control systems, (iv) Designing an efficient management information system, (v) Assistance for computerization of CCS at all levels with appropriate software and hardware on need based approach, (vi) Providing training and capacity building of required number of personnel of the CCS in all tiers during the implementation period of the package in the State. (vii) Administrative and logistic support to the State level implementation committee (SLIC) and the District Level Implementation Committees (DLICs) (viii) Lending funds to any Co-operative society forming part of the CCS, either directly or through any financial institution regulated by RBI on such terms as set by its Board. (c) NABARD shall undertake and complete the above activities within the time schedules to be arrived at by mutual consent of all the parties to this MOU and the State Level Implementation Committee. (d) NABARD undertakes to constitute a task force comprising the officer-in-charge of Gujarat Regional Office of NABARD, Registrar of Co-operative societies (RCS) of the State, Gujarat Manager/Deputy General Manger of the Regional Office of RBI and Manging Director of the Gujarat State Co-operative Bank to periodically review the performance of the StCB and CCBs in the State, specifically in respect of good governance, compliance with statutory requirements of regulatory and supervisory norms and actions of RBI/NABARD in that regard, and to suggest improvements in their functioning including human resources development. 9. The State undertakes to bring in amendments to or incorporate a special chapter in the Gujarat State Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 to give effect to the reforms envisaged under the package in respect of all entities which are part of the CCS. Pending such amendments, the State undertakes to issue an Ordinance under the powers conferred on it under Article 213 of the Constitution of India to provide for the following in respect of all entities which are part of the CCS: 9.1. ensuring full voting membership rights to all depositors/borrowers in co-operatives other than Co-operative banks. 9.2. Pending such amendments, the State undertakes to issue an Ordinance under the powers conferred on it under Article 213 of the Constitution of India to provide for the following in respect of all entities which are part of the CCS: 9.1. ensuring full voting membership rights to all depositors/borrowers in co-operatives other than Co-operative banks. 9.2. providing autonomy to CCS in all financial and internal administrative matters, especially in the following areas: - interest rates on deposits and loans in conformity with RBI guidelines, - borrowings and investments, - loan policies and individual loan decisions, - personnel policy, staffing, recruitment, posting, and compensation to staff, and - internal control systems, appointment of auditors and compensation for the audit. 9.3. Restricting the State Government’s equity to a maximum of 25% in any Co-operative at any level and limiting State participation in the Board of a StCB or CCBs to only one nominee and not to have any State nominee on the Board of any Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The state or a Co-operative at any level wishing to reduce the State equity further would be free to do so and the Co-operative will not be prevented from doing so. (emphasis supplied) 9.4. allowing transition of any Co-operative registered under the Gujarat State Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 to the parallel Self Reliant Operative Societies Act, when enacted and permitting Co-operatives under the Self Reliant Co-operative Societies Act to be members of federal structures registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and vice versa, 9.5 allowing freedom to any Co-operative in the CCS to affiliate or disaffiliate with a federal structure of its choice, 9.6 allowing freedom of entry and exit for any unit of CCS at any level with no mandated restrictions of geographical boundaries for its operations, 9.7. withdrawing any restrictive orders on financial matters like investments to be made by Co-operatives and permitting them to invest funds, subject to the guidelines as may be prescribed by RBI, 9.8. withdrawing any restrictive orders on financial matters like investments to be made by Co-operatives and permitting them to invest funds, subject to the guidelines as may be prescribed by RBI, 9.8. permitting any Co-operative in all the three tiers freedom to take loans from any RBI regulated financial institution, and refinance from NABARD or any other refinancing agency directly or through any RBI regulated financial institution of its choice and not necessarily from only the federal tier to which it is affiliated and similarly, placing its deposits with or making investments in any regulated financial institution of its choice and not necessarily with only the federal tier to which it is affiliated. 9.9. laying down guidelines for the purpose of payment of dividend by PACS in consultation with NABARD. 9.10 there shall be no compulsion on contribution to funds other than those required for improvising the net worth/owned funds of the societies, 9.11 the Director representing a non-credit society on the board of a CCB or Gujarat State Co-operative Bank (GSCB) shall get disqualified in the event of the society committing a default for a period exceeding 90 days. 9.12. the person who is a defaulting member or a office bearer of a defaulting PACS shall not be eligible to be elected to the Board of the society or the bank as the case may be, or continue on the Board for more than one year unless the default is cleared. 9.13. ensuring implementation of regulatory prescriptions of the RBI in the case of Gujarat State Co-operative Bank and CCBs including suppression of the Board of the GSCB or a CCB or winding up of the GSCB or a CCB and appointment of a liquidator within one month of being so advised by the RBI, 9.14. supersession of the Board of the GSCB or a CCB by the RCS under any other Clause of the Gujarat State Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 shall be done only in consultation with RBI. The Board of a PACS shall be superseded by the RCS only under the following conditions: 9.14.1. if a society incurs losses for three consecutive years, or 9.14.2. if serious financial irregularities or frauds have been identified, or 9.14.3. if there are judicial directives to this effect or there is perpetual lack of quorum. 9.15. The Board of a PACS shall be superseded by the RCS only under the following conditions: 9.14.1. if a society incurs losses for three consecutive years, or 9.14.2. if serious financial irregularities or frauds have been identified, or 9.14.3. if there are judicial directives to this effect or there is perpetual lack of quorum. 9.15. ensuring timely elections before the expiry of the term of the existing Board of any Co-operative and within two months from the date of super session of any Board so ensuring that members of the Board of a PACS which has been superseded due to a reason as in 9.14.1 and 9.14.2 above would not be entitled to contest against for a period of atleast three years after super session. 9.16. ensuring approval of he bye-laws of the Co-operatives within one month from the date of submissions to the RCS. 9.17. prescribing prudential norms, including CRAR, for all financial Co-operatives other than Co-operative banks, but including PACS in consultation with NABARD. 9.18. removing at the request of NABARD/RBI director(s) CEO(s) who do not fulfill the proper criteria stipulated by RBI in the case of GSCB and CCBs. 9.19. prescribing co-option of professionals on the Board of GSCB or a CCB with full voting rights, in case professionals as stipulated by the RBI do not get elected to the Board of the GSCB or the CCB. 9.20. auditing of GSCB and CCBs by Chartered Accountants approved by NABARD. 9.21. conducting of a special audit of a StCB or a CCB if requested by the RBI and for submitting of report to the RBI within the time stipulated by it, 9.22. deregistering as societies, PACS which are using the word ‘bank’, ‘banking’, ‘banker’ or any other derivative of the word ‘bank’ in their registered named. AMENDMENT IN THE ACT: In pursuance to Clause-9 in the aforesaid tripartite agreement (MOU), the Gujarat State Legislature amended the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act by Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Gujarat Act No. 1/2008). deregistering as societies, PACS which are using the word ‘bank’, ‘banking’, ‘banker’ or any other derivative of the word ‘bank’ in their registered named. AMENDMENT IN THE ACT: In pursuance to Clause-9 in the aforesaid tripartite agreement (MOU), the Gujarat State Legislature amended the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act by Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Gujarat Act No. 1/2008). The Statement of Objects and Reasons while amending the Act by Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2008 is enclosed herewith for ready reference at Annexure-B. A perusal of Clause 9.1 to 9.22 (proposed amendment in the tripartite agreement) and the amended provisions which are amended by Gujarat Act No. 1/2008 would show that only intention o f the Legislature is to amend the Act to bring it in conformity with the Vaidyanathan Committee’s report/recommendations (which is, indisputably, only confined to State Co-operative Bank, District Central Co-operative Bank and Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies). The amendment of Section 80 of the Act by adding Sub-section (3) thereof is in compliance with Clause 9.3 of the tripartite agreement (quoted above) and Section 80(3) of the Act are read together, it would leave no room for doubt that amendment in Section 80(3) is only confined to State Co-operative Bank, District Central Co-operative Banks and Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies. LAND DEVELOPEMNT BANK: So far as the Land Development Bank is concerned, as pointed out above, it is separately defined in the NABARD Act. It is governed by an independent Chapter provided in detail viz. Chapter XI. So far as Land Development Banks in the country are concerned (which provide for log term agricultural credit), the Vaidyanathan Committee has made separate recommendations. It has been asserted in the affidavit in reply filed by the State Government very specifically (at page 106) that he Vaidyanathan Committee report for long term agricultural credit (for Land Development Bank) is still under consideration and no tripartite agreement is entered into and consequently, the Act is not amended for the land development banks. This fact is not disputed by the petitioners. This fact is not disputed by the petitioners. The State Government has also placed on record a letter sent by NABARD to State Land Development Bank being letter dated 9th March 2011, which is at Annexure-C. In the said letter, the NABARD itself admits that so far as Gujarat State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank (the bank which is questioned in the present petition) being long term Co-operative credit structure Bank (LTCCS) it is not covered by the package under which the Act is amended. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: So far as the interpretation of Section 80(3) is concerned, its plain reading even with the definition Clause contained in Section 2(7) of the Act makes out clearly out that it applies sonly to the State Co-operative Bank, District Co-operative Bank and Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statute that the Legislative intent can be gathered from the statement of Objects ad Reasons. During the course of hearing, the statement of Objects and Reasons was not placed before the Court for its consideration. A purposeful reading of Statement of Objects and Reasons make it very clear that all amendments made by Gujarat Act No. 1/2008 are in pursuance to and for giving effect of the aforesaid MOU (tripartite agreement), which necessarily is confined to the societies falling in the definition of ‘cooperative credit structure’ as defined (in the amendment itself) in Section 2 (7A), which reads as under: “S. 2 : 7(A): ‘Co-operative credit structure’ means (i) the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies, (ii) the Central Co-operative Banks, and (iii) the State Co- operative Bank.’ Thus, the conjoint reading of Vaidyanathan Committee report, tripartite agreement (MOU), the statement of Objects and Reasons and the amendments made to bring the Act in conformity with Clause 9.3 to 9.22 of the MOU, makes it amply clear that amendment in Section 80, by insertion of Sub-section (3) does not apply the Land Development Bank (the bank which is the subject after of the present petition). For Land Development Bank, the Central Government, the NABARD and the Sate Governess have yet to consider as to which recommendations of the Vaidyanathan Committee report are to be accepted. There will, thereafter be, a similar tripartite agreement. For Land Development Bank, the Central Government, the NABARD and the Sate Governess have yet to consider as to which recommendations of the Vaidyanathan Committee report are to be accepted. There will, thereafter be, a similar tripartite agreement. If such an agreement is entered into, the Legislature will be required to consider the amendment of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act once again are only thereafter statutory amendments for the land development Banks will come into effect. Learned Advocate for the respondent State has concluded in the written submissions that, except the aforesaid question of law, no other contentions were raised by the petitioners and therefore were not dealt with by the State Government.” 6. The Respondent No. 6 has also made written submissions elaborately against the petitions as under: 6.1 It is submitted that present petition is not tenable in law as the petition is filed on behalf of Gujarat State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. However, the Petitioner No. 12 who has affirmed the petition without producing on record any resolution passed by the Bank authorizing him to file present petition on behalf of the Bank or empowering him to file a petition in the name of Bank. 6.2 The present petition is a deliberate attempt on behalf of the petitioner to mislead the Hon’ble Court with sole intention to disturb election which is held strictly in accordance with the provisions of by-law No. 33 of by-laws of the Bank and Section 145Z of the Act and needs no interference especially when it has already been concluded and present respondent has already taken over charge as Chairman as directed by the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 6.1.201 passed in SCA No. 25 & 26 of 2011 (Coram: Mr. Justice Jayant Patel, J). 6.3 It is submitted that the original prayers as made in Para 27(B) to 27(E) (does) did not survive in view of the fat that the State Government has already appointed nominees on the Board of Directors of the Bank and subsequent thereto, a meeting in accordance with by-law No. 33 has also been called, wherein at the end of due process of election, the answering respondent was declared elected. Thus, it is a matter of record that such nominee members have already been appointed and they have exercised their right, privilege or power as a member of Director and therefore, none of the prayers as prayed for from Para 27(B) to 27(E) survive and the petition has become infructuous for all practical purposes. 6.4 It is further submitted that even so far as the amended prayers being 27 (CC) an 27(DD) virtually amounts to a challenge of election that has been duly held and result whereof has already been declared. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that pursuant to the result of said meeting, the answering respondent has already been appointed as Chairman and has already started acting as a Chairman and therefore, such a prayer qua segregation of votes and recounting of vote is contrary to basic and fundamental democratic principle of secrecy of votes and is wholly untenable and deserves to be rejected at threshold. At this juncture it may be noted that so far as challenge to election is concerned, there is an alternative remedy provided under he Act itself. The Legislature has provided for a complete Code dealing with each and every stage of election, namely, right from the preparation of the voters list till the declaration of the results and an aggrieved party may avail statutory remedy under Section 145U of the Act, which reads as under:— 145U: Disputes relating to elections to be submitted to the Tribunal: [1] Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 96 or any other provisions of this Act, any dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Tribunal. [2] Such reference may be made by an aggrieved party by presenting an election to the Tribunal. Provided that no such petition shall be made till after the final result of the election is declared and where any such petition is made it shall not be admitted by the Tribunal unless it is made within two months from the date of such declaration: Provided further that, the Tribunal may admit any petition after the expiry of that period. If the petitioner satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within the said period. If the petitioner satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within the said period. [3] In exercising the functions conferred o it by or under this Chapter, the Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested In a Court in respect of— (a) proof of facts by affidavit; (b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and explaining him on oath; (c) compelling discovery or the production of documents, and (d) Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses. In the case of any such affidavit, an officer appointed by the Tribunal in this behalf may administer the oath to the deponent. (4) Subject to any regulations made by the Tribunal in this behalf, any such petition shall be heard and disposed of by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible. An order made by the Tribunal on such petition shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called in question in any Court.” It is thus submitted that since the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of going before the statutorily created Tribunal, this Court may not invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present petition therefore deserves to be dismissed in limine. 6.5 It is further submitted that so far as prayer made in Para 27(A) is concerned, it is a matter of record that in all the elections of Board of Directors that has taken place till date, the State Government has been nominating Directors and such nominated members have always participated in all the elections and have also voted at times. It would not be out of place to mention at this juncture that in last term, one of the nominated member had also contested elections for the post of Vice Chairman. Thus, it becomes abundantly clear that till date, the State Government had been nominating members pursuant to the powers vested in it under he statute as well as vested under by-law No. 28 (ii) and the contention as raised in this petition are devoid of any merits and does not deserve any consideration by this Court. Thus, it becomes abundantly clear that till date, the State Government had been nominating members pursuant to the powers vested in it under he statute as well as vested under by-law No. 28 (ii) and the contention as raised in this petition are devoid of any merits and does not deserve any consideration by this Court. 6.6 Respondent No. 6 has submitted that so far as the State Government’s powers under Section 80 of the Co-operative Societies Act are concerned, they are statutory powers vested in it and even otherwise State Government has such source of powers under bye law No. 28(ii) of petitioner Bank which equally empowers State to make appointment. 6.7 It is submitted that it would become abundantly clear that the present petition is filed solely with a view to prejudice this Court and canvass a misleading proposition that the petitioner bank is part of societies falling under Co-operative credit structure, as defined under Section 2 (7A) of the Act though the statutory provisions in this behalf is absolutely clear and unambiguous and the same does not include the petitioner bank under the definition since petitioner bank is an apex level institution disbursing long term agricultural finance governed by an independent separate chapter. 6.8 It is submitted that appointment of nominated members are made under Section 80(1) and undisputedly State Government having guaranteed repayment of dues of petitioner bank, such powers statutorily vest in State Government. Thus contention as raised is factually and legally untenable and deserves no consideration by this Court exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6.9 It is submitted that even while presuming for the sake of arguments that the contention raised by the petitioners is correct, then also, no elected member of the Bank can go out of purview of by-laws of the Bank itself, which inter alia at by-law No. 28 provide as under:— “28. Board of Directors: Management of the Bank shall vest in a Board consisting of the following Directors: (i) one Director shall be nominated by the Gujarat State Co-operative Bank from amongst the members of its Board of Directors provided it holds shares of the Bank to the extent of 1/20th of its paid up share-capital as on 31st March to the preceding year or Rs. 5000/- whichever is less. 5000/- whichever is less. (ii) 3 Directors to be nominated by the Government of whom one shall be the commissioner of the Cooperation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies or its representative. (iii) One Director for each of the District except Dang shall be elected from amongst the members whose names have been entered in the subsidiary registers maintained at the branches situated in the respective Districts. Explanation : Ahmadabad ad Gandhinagar District shall be deemed to be one District for the purpose of this Clause. Bulsar and Dang District shall be deemed to be one District for the purpose of this clause. (iv) Deleted. Managing Director, if appointed, under these by-laws” 6.10 It is submitted that thus, even on presumption that the State Government has no authority in the statute to appoint any nominee members, the By-law of the Society itself, has a provision for nomination of three Directors by the Government and thus, exercise of power by the State Government and thus, exercise of power by the State Government cannot ipso facto be said o be illegal if it merely mentions exercise of powers under Section 80 in as much as that under thereby-laws of Bank itself, the State Government has the powers to appoint three nominated Board of Directors. 6.11 It is submitted that a blatant and deliberate attempt on the part of petition No. 10 is made to mislead this Court as can be directly inferred by perusal of documents placed by it as Annexure-F at page 76 of paper book. It is submitted that the said statement is an absolute incorrect representation before this Court making changes in title to suit petitioner’s contention and to mislead this Court creating a vague picture that the petitioner bank is indulging into advances of credit finances to various small societies. In fact, the original document as issued by the Bank is referring to demand, recovery and deficit of institutional advances / loans and is not a statement of demand, recovery and deficit of any credit Co-operative society as is sought to be canvassed. It is submitted that the original statement specifically referring to a char / statement pertaining to institutional advances / loans for different districts is already annexed to with reply of answering respondent. It is submitted that the original statement specifically referring to a char / statement pertaining to institutional advances / loans for different districts is already annexed to with reply of answering respondent. 6.12 It is submitted that the changes made in document by petitioner is not only limited to the extent of change of title, but it also seeks to exclude major institutional finances viz. Finances made to various Agriculture Produce Market Committees. In fact, the advances / loan extended to societies was given for the purpose of constructing a godown and creation of asset and not for further disbursement to its members since petitioner bank indisputably does not fall under three tier system as defined by the statute. 6.13 It is submitted that the finance which have been given by the Land Development Bank to some of the Co-operative societies is not an agricultural finance as stipulated in the aforesaid three tier structure, but some finance given for the use of the society itself for its own purposes and the same can not in any event change the fact that petitioner bank is a society concerned with log term agricultural finance not falling within the definition of ‘cooperative credit structure’. It is submitted that even NABARD has also in its communication dated 9/3/2011 unequivocally confirmed that petitioner bank is involved only in Long Term Finances and not Short term finances. 6.14 It is submitted that so far as party affiliation of answering respondent is concerned, the same is a matter of record and there is no dispute qua he still continuing with the same party that he has always been continuing with It is submitted that so far as election of Bank are concerned, the same is an independent democratic process where elections are contested by individuals without any party symbols or issuance of any mandate by a recognized / registered political party. All members elected through a democratic election process without any party affiliation and even otherwise it is an undisputed fact that majority of elected members belong to party that I belong to and thus also, role of nominated members does not assume any significance. Such averments by petitioner with regard to political affiliation are uncalled for and deserves no consideration of the Court since they are a matter of internal affairs of a political party. Such averments by petitioner with regard to political affiliation are uncalled for and deserves no consideration of the Court since they are a matter of internal affairs of a political party. 6.15 At the end the Respondent No. 6 has submitted that the present petition is devoid of any merits and does not deserve any consideration of the Court over & above the fact that the prayers made therein are already not surviving and the same has become infructuous.” 7. This Court heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the orders impugned. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the advocates for the parties, it would be most appropriate to enumerate here under the indisputable aspects emerging therefrom, namely:— 7.1 Gujarat State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Bank Limited has produced its bye-laws as amended up to 8/2/2008. A close perusal of these by-laws conclusively establishes that the Bank is governed by Chapter-XI of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Chapter-XI contains provision from Section 116 to 145. In a way it can be said that it contains specific provisions required to be enacted specially for governing the business, affairs and conduct of Land Development Banks like the Bank in question. The close reading of relevant provision of Co-operative Societies Act would clearly indicate that that the Act contains specific Chapters devoted to deal with a class of Co-operative societies like Chapter-X(A) for Insured Co-operative Banks, Chapter-X(D) is for certain other provisions relating to Urban Co-operative Banks. Chapter-VI is for Land Development Banks. 7.2 The Bye-laws produced by the Bank at page-27 contains Clause No. 3(i) which indicate that “to advance loans for the purposes enumerated in Section 116 of the Act”. The entire clause-3 unequivocally go to show that this Bank is essentially a Bank governed by Chapter XI of the Co-operatives Societies Act. 7.3 The Bank initially appears to have been interested in challenging the nomination of Respondent No. 4 and 5 on it’s Board and hence a petition being Special Civil Application No. 223 of 2011 came to be filed by the Bank along with 13 elected directors. 7.3 The Bank initially appears to have been interested in challenging the nomination of Respondent No. 4 and 5 on it’s Board and hence a petition being Special Civil Application No. 223 of 2011 came to be filed by the Bank along with 13 elected directors. But as could be seen from the subsequent communication dated 23/1/2011 addressed to their advocate who had filed the petition and to the Registrar of this Court dated 24/1/2011, Bank indicated that it was not interested in pursuing the petition and was desirous of withdrawing the petition as the Bank has accepted position of Respondent No. 4 and 5 as Government’s nomination on the board of directors of the Bank. The precise averment made in this letter dated 24/1/2011 are required to be set out as under: “The Petitioner No. 1-bank has accepted the appointment of the respondents No. 4 and 5 as Government nominees of the Board of Directors of the bank. The Petitioner No. 1-bank is no longer interested in challenging the action of the State Government in appointing the Government nominees under Section 80 of the Act and, therefore, the Petitioner No. 1-bank wants to withdraw the aforesaid petition being S.C.A. No. 223/2011 qua the Petitioner No. 1-bank. The Petitioner No. 1-bank has already informed the concerned advocate who had filed the aforesaid petition on telephone. However, by way of caution, a copy of this letter is also forwarded to the concerned advocate.” In view of this, the petition qua Petitioner No. 1-Bank stood withdrawn, However on 28/2/2011 Respondent No. 6 & 10 were permitted to be transposed as Respondent No. 6 & 7 respectively. 3. The relevant Clauses & provisions from the Bye-Law annexed with the petition by the Bank deserves to be set out here under. “BY-LAWS Of THE GUJARAT STATE Co-operative AGRI & RURAL DEVEOOPMENT BANK LTD. “3. Objects: The objects of the Bank shall be: 3. ( i) To advance loans for the purposes enumerated in Section 116 of the Act. 3. (ii) To grant loans to any person or persons, corporate body established under any law for the time being in force, on such terms and conditions including nature of security as the Board may decide from time to time. ( i) To advance loans for the purposes enumerated in Section 116 of the Act. 3. (ii) To grant loans to any person or persons, corporate body established under any law for the time being in force, on such terms and conditions including nature of security as the Board may decide from time to time. It shall be competent for the Bank to make advances to boring contractors including Co-operative Societies and Panchayats at such rate of interest, and on such terms and conditions as the Board may decide, provide such contractors are members of the Bank. 3. (iii) To grant Loans to tenants under the various Land Reforms and Tenancy Acts in force in the area of operation of the Bank. 3. (iv) To grant loans to the Co-operative Farming Societies. 3. (v) To grant financial assistance to Societies functioning mainly for the purposes of promoting Schemes of land improvement. 3(viii) To buy and sell securities of the Government of India, the Government of Gujarat or other securities specified in Clauses (a), (b), (c) , and (d) of Section 20 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and to act as Agents for buyers and sellers of such securities. 3. (x) To grant loans for all such purposes refinanced by National Bank for agriculture and Rural Development and such other statutory bodies of Central and State Government. 4 . The Bank shall have powers to: (a) Float debentures on such terms and conditions as may be approved by Government on the security of its assets and mortgages of immovable property, and also against securities as taken in hypothecation, pledge and charge. (b) Receive deposits and borrow money otherwise than by issue of debentures. (c) Acquire such immovable properties and construct such buildings as it may consider necessary for the proper conduct of its business. 5. (a) The membership of the Bank shall be open to: (a) Government. (b) All societies registered under the Act in the area of operation of the Bank. (c) All tenants as qualified and eligible for loan under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act. (d) all other persons. 6 (a) Any person who intends to be enrolled as member, shall make an application in the prescribed form to the Bank or to any of its offices as the Board may prescribe. 11. (c) All tenants as qualified and eligible for loan under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act. (d) all other persons. 6 (a) Any person who intends to be enrolled as member, shall make an application in the prescribed form to the Bank or to any of its offices as the Board may prescribe. 11. (a) Every member shall hold atleast one share and every application shall be accompanied with the amount required for shares applied. Every member shall pay an entrance fee of Rs. 5 such fee shall be non-refundable. 11. (b) Every individual borrower shall subscribe for shares of the aggregate face value of atleast 5% or more of its total borrowings from eh Bank as the Board may decide. Provided that the Board may prescribe lesser amount for any specified borrowing by the members. 18. Funds to be raised y the Bank: The funds of the Bank may be raised by (a) Share (b) Debentures (c) Government loans and Deposits (d) borrowing from State Bank of Saurashtra or State Bank of India or any other Bank or National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Nabard) or any other statutory corporation or any other Financial Institution under Government Guarantee (e) Non-Government deposits (f) other borrowings (g) fees and (h) donations. Provided that the aggregate amount of the funds raised under Clauses (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) shall not exceed four times the aggregate amount of paid-up share capital and reserve fund and building fund minus accumulated losses if any of the bank or such other higher limit as may be sanctioned by the Registrar, Provided further that the total amount due on Debentures and outstanding any time should not exceed the limit prescribed in Section 119 of the Act. 19. Authorized Capital: The authorized and issued share capital of the Bank shall be Rs. 1,00,00,00,000/- made up of 10,00,00,000/- shares of Rs. 10/- each. The Bank may receive from the Govt. as contribution towards its share capital such sums upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the Bank and the Government. 20. Debentures: The Registrar or where the Government appoints any other person in this behalf, such person, shall be the trustee for the purpose of securing the fulfillment of the obligations of the Bank to the holders of the debentures issued by the Bank. 20. Debentures: The Registrar or where the Government appoints any other person in this behalf, such person, shall be the trustee for the purpose of securing the fulfillment of the obligations of the Bank to the holders of the debentures issued by the Bank. All the property of the Bank on the security of which such debentures are issued shall vest in the Trustee. 28. Board of Directors: The Management of the Bank shall vest in a Board consisting of the following Directors: (i) One Director shall be nominated by the Gujarat State Co-operative Bank from amongst the members of its Board of Directors, provided it holds shares of the Bank to the extent of 1/20 of its paid up share-capital as on 31st March of the preceding year of Rs. 5,000/- whichever is less. (ii) Three Directors to be nominated by the Government of whom one shall be the Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies or his representative. (iii) One Director for each of the district except Dang shall be elected from amongst the members whose names have been entered in the subsidiary registers maintained at the branches situated in the respective districts. Explanation: Ahmedabad and Gandhinanagar district shall be deemed to be one district for the purpose of this clause. Bulsar and Dang district shall be deemed to be one district for the purpose of this clause. (iv) DELETED. (v) Managing Director, if appointed, under these by-laws.” (5) The relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act also need to be set out hereunder for appreciating their purport in correct context. “2 (3) ‘Central Bank’- Means a Co-operative bank, the objective of which include the creation of funds to be loaned to other societies. 2. (7)’Co-operati9ve Bank’- Means a society registered under this Act and doing the business of banking, as defined in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (X of 1949),’ (*7A) “Co-operative credit structure” means (i)the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies; (ii) the Central Co-operative Banks; and (iii) the State Co-operative Bank;” (*13A) “National Bank” means the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development established under Section 3 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (LXI of 1981)” 80. Power to appoint Government nominee: (1) Where the State Government has subscribed to the share capital of a society, directly or through another society, or has guarantee the repayment of the principal of an payment of interest on, debenture issued or loans raised by a society, (2) the State Government shall, notwithstanding anything contained in bye-laws of such society, have the right to nominate three representatives in the bye-laws of such society); in such manner as may be determined by the State Government from time to time. The members so nominated shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government, or for such period as may be specified in the order by which they are appointed, and any such member on assuming office shall have all rights, duties, responsibilities and liabilities as if he were a member of the committee duly elected. Explanation:—Any combination of the Registrar of his nominee on the Committee of a society under the bye-laws of such society shall not be construed as nomination of the representative on that Committee in exercise of the right of the State Government under this sub-section. (2) Where the State Government is of the opinion that having regard to the public interest involved in the operation of a society it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may nominate its representatives on the committee of such society as if the State Government had subscribed to the share capital of the society and the provision of Sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply to such nomination. *(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules or in the bye-laws, there shall be only one nominee of the State Government in the committee of the State Co-operative Bank or the Central Co-operative Bank where the State Government has subscribed to the share capital of such Co-operative banks and no such nomination shall be made where the state Government has not subscribed to the share capital for such Co-operative banks and no such nomination shall be made on the committee of a primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative society irrespective of whether the state Government has subscribed to the share capital of a society or not.” CHAPTER-XI LAND DEVERO-MENT BANKS 116. Application for chapter to certain Land Development Banks: 117. Application for chapter to certain Land Development Banks: 117. Definition: In this Chapter unless the context otherwise requires:- (1) “Land Development Bank” :- means a Co-operative Bank registered or deemed to be registered under this Act, and to which this Chapter applies; (2) “Primary Land Development Bank”: means Land Development Bank recognized as Primary Land Development Bank by the Registrar; (3) State Land Development Bank: means a Land Development Bank for the whole of the State of Gujarat and recognized as such by the Registrar. 118. Appointment, powers and functions of Trustee: (1) The Registrar or where the State Government appoints any other person in this behalf, such person, shall be the Trustee for the purpose of securing the fulfillment of the obligation of the State Land Development Bank to the holders of debentures issued by the State Land Development Bank. (2) The trustee shall be a corporation sole, by the name of the Trustee for the debentures in respect of which he is appointed and, as such, shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and in his corporate name may sue and be sued. (3) The powers and functions of the Trustee shall be governed by the previsions of this Act, and the instrument of trust executed between the State Land Development Bank and the Trustee, as modified from time to time by mutual agreement between he State Land Development Bank and the Trustee. 119. Issue of debentures: 1. With the previous sanction of the State Government and the Trustee, and Subject to the rules, the State Land Development Bank in the discharge of its functions issue debentures of such Bank in the discharge of its functions issue debentures of such denominations, for such period, and at such rates of interest, as it may deem expedient on the security of the mortgages, or mortgages to be acquired or partly on mortgages held and partly on those to be acquired and properties and other assets of its land mortgage business. 2. Every debenture may contain a term fixing a period not exceeding thirty years from the date of issue during which it shall be redeemable, or reserving to the committee the right to redeem at any time in advance of the date fixed for redemption after giving to the holders of the debenture not less than three months notice in writing. 3. 3. The total amount due to debentures issued by the State Land Development Bank, and outstanding at any time, shall not exceed:— (a) where debentures are issued against mortgages held, the aggregate of:— (i) the amounts due o the mortgages; (ii) the value of the properties and other assets transferred or deemed to have been transferred under Section 124 by Development Bank and subsisting as such time and (iii) the amounts paid under the mortgages aforesaid and he unsecured amounts remaining in the hands of the State Land Development Bank or the Trustee at the time; (b) where debenture are issued otherwise than a mortgages held, the total amount as calculated under Clause (a) increased by such portion of the amount obtained on the debenture as is not covered by a mortgage. “120. Guarantee by State Government: The principal of, and interest on, the debentures issued under Section 119 shall, to such maximum amount as may be fixed by the State Government and subject to such conditions as the State Government may think fit to impose, carry the guarantee of the State Government” (6) The Bank is certainly not one of the society falling under the definition of “Co-Operative Credit Structure” as provided under the Section 2 (7-A) of The Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. (7) The Government has vide its order dated 1/1/2011 nominated Respondent No. 4 & 5 to be member of the Board of Directors of the Bank. (8) The Elections for the post of Chairman and vice chairman are over on 17.01.2011 as ordered by this Court on 6.01.2011 in two writ petitions being SCA 25 and 26 of 2011. (9) The Bank has accepted the nominations and accordingly withdrawn petition being SCA 223 of 2011 qua itself vide it’s letters dated 23.01.2011 and 24.01.2011. (10) The petitioner of SCA 2177 of 2011 has lost the election against the present incumbent Respondent No. 6 in SCA 223 of 2011. (11) The petitioner of SCA 2177 of 2011 has filed the petition in his individual capacity and not by or on behalf of the Bank. (10) The petitioner of SCA 2177 of 2011 has lost the election against the present incumbent Respondent No. 6 in SCA 223 of 2011. (11) The petitioner of SCA 2177 of 2011 has filed the petition in his individual capacity and not by or on behalf of the Bank. (12) The petitioner of petition No. 2177 of 2011 has placed on record the Government Resolution dated 7.01.1994 nominating the Respondent No. 2 by designation to be member of the Bank’s Board till further orders and no material is placed on record to indicate in any manner that it has come to an end. (13) On the contrary the said GR dated 7.01.1994 is said to have been in operation where under the Respondent No. 2 in SCA 2177 of 2011 appears to have acted as nominated member on the Board of the Bank. (14) The remaining petitioners of SCA 223 of 2011 also do not have any authority from the Bank to continue with the petition rather the Bank has made specific request for permitting it to withdraw the petition qua itself accordingly now the remaining petitioners in that petition also cannot claim any legitimate right to voice grievances on behalf of the corporate body like the Bank. 8. Against the aforesaid backdrop of indisputable aspects now let us examine closely the contentions raised by learned Counsels of the respective parties. 9. A close perusal of the provisions of Sections 2 (3), 2 (7), and 2(7-A), would go to show that all Co-operative Banks as defined under provisions of Section 2(7) are not essentially “Central Bank” forming part of the “Co-operative Credit Structure” as came to be defined for the first time under provisions of Section 2(7-A) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. A ‘Co-operative Bank’ as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act is certainly a registered society doing business of banking as defined in Clause (b) of Sub Clause (1) of Section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. This Co-operative Bank, as such, if has no further qualification or attributes of objective of creation of funds to be loaned to other societies than, it would not be covered by the definition of “Central Bank” as provided under Section 2(3) of the Co-operative Societies Act and in turn not form part of the “Co-operative Credit Structure” as defined under Section 2(7-A) of the Co-operative Societies Act. 10. 10. The legislature has, by introducing new Sub-section (7-A) in Section 2, in the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 for the first time recognized and provided for existence of “Co-operative Credit Structure” consisting of three tiers namely (i) the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies being the primary tier or the first rung in the ladder, (ii) the Central Co-operative Banks, being second tier or middle rung in the ladder. And (iii) The State Co-operative Bank, the apex tier or third rung in the ladder. After recognizing and providing for this three tiers system by way of the one of the provisions of Gujarat Act 1 of 2008 the legislature made various provisions for the first time for making it work in accordance with the objective for creating it, in the very same Gujarat Act 1 of 2008 as could be evident from the various new provisions came to be inserted at various places in the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. 11. It would be expedient to refer to some of the provisions which came to be inserted by way Gujarat Act 1 of 2008 into the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 for facilitating smooth working of the “Co-operative Credit Structure” for its defined objective. The legislature has provided for regulating membership in the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society by inserting Sub-section 4 and 5 into Section 22 without mentioning words “ Co-operative Credit Structure” whereas the legislature has, by inserting new Section being Section 44-A made express provisions defining powers of Committee of Co-operative Credit Structure, which inures only for the societies forming part of the “Co-operative Credit Structure” and no other Co-operative society or Co-operative Bank can claim those powers contained in Section 44-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Though provisions of Section 45 as it stood originally contain general restrictions on societies’ loan making powers but by inserting Sub-section (3) in Section 45 a special provision is made so far as the Primary Agricultural credit Societies are concerned without specifically mentioning “Co-operative Credit Structure” in the entire Section 45. Chapter V of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 captioned as “State Aid to Societies” contains provisions from Section 51 to Section 64. Chapter V of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 captioned as “State Aid to Societies” contains provisions from Section 51 to Section 64. the legislature has made only one amendment in form of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 by statutorily regulating State’s discretion of subscribing to the shares capital of Co-operative societies covered by “co-operative credit structure” which is otherwise not found in case of societies not forming part of the Co-operative Credit Structure. 12. The provisions of Section 64 gives overriding effect to the provisions of Chapter V of the Co-operative societies Act, It specifically provides that the provisions of Section 52 to 62 (both inclusive) in the Chapter V shall have effect notwithstanding therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The Gujarat Act No. 1 of 2008 has not made any change to this provisions and therefore provisions of Section 80(3) are to be construed bearing in mind the non-OBTANTE provision of Section 64 of the Act, which gives over riding effect to the provisions of Section 52 to 62 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 not only on the provisions of the Co-operative societies Act, Rules and Bye laws but also upon provisions of other law time being in force. 13. The legislature has made special provisions in form of Chapter XI captioned as “ Land Development Banks” containing Section 116 to 154 in the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The provisions of Section 116 makes it amply clear that the said chapter applies to “Land Development banks” advancing loan other than short term loans for the purpose mentioned therein. I have already in detail set out relevant bey-laws of the Bank and other provisions of Chapter XI hence I need not repeat the same here under but collective reading thereof would go a long way to establish that the Bank is essentially a Co-operative Bank governed by the provisions of Chapter XI and especially Section 116 to 154 and it is not certainly a part of the “Co-Operative Credit Structure” as defined under the provisions of Section 2(7-A) of the Gujarat Co-operative societies Act, 1961. 14. 14. Thus close reading of the aforesaid provisions contained in Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, it becomes clearer that the Land Development Banks are certainly not forming part of the Co-operative Credit structure as defined under Section 2(7A) of the Act. The Land Development Banks have different set of regulations in the form of previsions made under Chapter-XI of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Legislature has very succinctly provided even definition Clause in that very chapter which would lend a distinct character to the Land Development Banks which are certainly not part & parcel for the Co-operative Credit Structure as defined under Section 2(7A) of the Co-operatives Societies Act. 15. The provisions of Section 80(1) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 empowers State Government to nominate its three representatives in the committee of a Co-operative society in the following eventualities namely (i) where the Government has subscribed to the share capital of a society, directly or through another society, or (ii) where the Government has guaranteed the repayment of the principal of and payment of interest on, debentures issued or loans raised by a society. The members so nominated shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government, or for such period as may be specified in the order by which they are appointed. The explanation provides that any nomination of the Registrar or his nominee on the committee of a society under the bye-law of such society shall not be construed as nomination of the representative on the committee in exercise of the right of the State Government under this subsection. The Sub-section (2) of Section 80 empowers the State to exercise it’s powers of nominations to a society even if the Government has not subscribed to its share capital or not guaranteed repayment of loan or interest but it forms an opinion to the nomination is warranted in public interest. In the instant case this court need not dwell much upon the purport of provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 80 as admittedly the State has not invoked Sub-section (2) of Section 80 while nominating Respondent No. 4 and 5 and the Registrar Co-operative Societies on the Board of the Bank. 16. Thus State’s power to make nomination in the committee of a Co-operative society was statutorily recognized and accepted. 16. Thus State’s power to make nomination in the committee of a Co-operative society was statutorily recognized and accepted. However for the first time by way of addition of Sub-section (3) to Section 80 an exception was carved out. This exception therefore is required to be construed strictly in accordance with the established principles of law. The plain reading thereof indicates that the State’s statutory power to make nomination in the Board or committee of a society is restricted and regulated in case of type of Co-operative societies and eventuality mentioned therein. The Sub-section (3) of Section 80 being in nature of exception to the discretion contained in Section 80 needs to be construed strictly. The said Sub-section (3) of Section 80 provides that notwithstanding any thing contained in the Co-operative societies Act, or the rules or in the bye-laws there shall be only one nominee of the State Government in the committee of the State Co-operative Bank, or the Central Co-operative Banks, where the State Government has subscribed to the share capital of such Co-operative banks, and no such nomination shall be made where the State Government has not subscribed to the share capital of such Co-operative bank and no such nomination shall be made on the committee of a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society irrespective of whether the State Government has subscribed to the share capital of a society or not. Thus out of total two eventualities envisaged under Section 80(1) namely (i) State government’s subscribing to the share capital of a society, directly or through another society, or (ii) the Government’s guarantee for repayment of the principal and payment of interest on, debentures issued or loans raised by a society for exercising powers of nominating its representatives under Section 80(1) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, only one eventuality is referred to and relied upon for restricting and regulating the State Government’s Powers to appoint nominees on the committee of a society under Section 80(1) of the Act. The Sub-section (3) of Section 80 is conspicuously silent so far as the second eventuality of State government’s guarantee on repayment of principal or payment of interest by a society is concerned. The Sub-section (3) of Section 80 is conspicuously silent so far as the second eventuality of State government’s guarantee on repayment of principal or payment of interest by a society is concerned. In other words the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 do not regulate or restrict the State Government’s discretion of nominating its representatives in the committee of a society where it has guaranteed repayment of principal or payment of interest of loan or debentures. 17. The restriction containing in Sub-section (3) of Section 80 upon the State Government’s discretion in nominating its representatives in the committee of a Co-operative society, share capital whereof is subscribed by the Government cannot be stretched further so as to encompass the eventuality of State Government’s guarantee for repayment of principal or payment of interest by that society as that eventuality is not covered by the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. To read that eventuality into Sub-section (3) of Section 80 would amount to reading what is not provided by the legislature. The Court is not to undertake an exercise of reading casus omissus in the provisions of law where there is none and attempt to provide something which is not even envisaged by legislature as it could be seen from the plain language of the provision. 18. Thus assuming for the sake of examining the submission of the petitioners, without holding, that the Bank in question is “Central Bank” and as such it is entitled to receive benefit of employment of phraseology of “the Central Co-operative Banks” in Sub-section (3) of Section 80 without it being required to be part of “Co-operative Credit Structure” as defined under Section 2(7-A), which it is admittedly not, than also on account of plain and simple reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 it can be said that the Bank in question would certainly not be covered by the exception only on account of State Government’s non subscription to it’s share capital in absence of any evidence that the State has not in any way guaranteed any repayment of principal or payment of interest on behalf of the Bank. On the contrary the petitioner’s advocate has in his written submission mentioned as under “ The contention of giving loan by bank to other societies stand admitted as the said facts has been in the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent No. 6, therefore ,the bank is raising the funds and giving loan to other societies is not disputed one. Therefore the status of the bank as a central Co-operative bank is undisputed one rather it is admitted. Sub-section 1 of Section 80 empowers the Government to appoint three nominees on the Board of the Directors of the society where the State Government has given guarantee. The facts undisputed are that the bank has raised loan from NABARD and given a guarantee, therefore, in absence of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section of the State , State would have power to nominate 3 directors on the Board, however said power stand abrogated in view of the special provision made in sub Section (3) of 80 of the Act which is enacted at later point of time.. i.e. By Act No. 1 of 2008.” (the emphasis supplied). Thus from the aforesaid it becomes clear that the second eventuality of State Government being guarantor or giving guarantee for repayment of principal or payment of interest being not covered under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 the bank in question did not have any right to challenge the nominations made by the State government. 19. The petitioner of SCA 2177 of 2011 has in fact no independent right of challenging the continuation of Respondent No. 2 i.e. The Registrar Co-operative Societies. The main ground of challenge being the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 no further separate elaborate reasoning is required to be resorted to as the aforesaid discussion would answer the contention. 20. The second submission in SCA 2177 of 2011 against the continuation of Respondent No. 2 on the Board of the Bank, being non issuance of fresh nomination orders in favour of the Respondent No. 2 by the State, also doest not merit is elaborate discussion. The provisions of Section 80(1) read with the Government GR dated 7.01.1994 would make it clear that there was no requirement of issuance of any fresh orders renominating the Registrar Co-operative Societies as one of the members on the Board of the Bank. The provisions of Section 80(1) read with the Government GR dated 7.01.1994 would make it clear that there was no requirement of issuance of any fresh orders renominating the Registrar Co-operative Societies as one of the members on the Board of the Bank. The Bank’s bye-law and the stands taken by the Bank coupled with the plain reading of provisions of Section 80(1) would be sufficient to negative the second contention made in the petition being SCA 2177 of 2011. 21. The Court at this stage would also like to observe that this Court has held in group of writ petitions being Special Civil Application No. 5583 of 2011 and allied matters, that except the Co-operative Society, a body corporate by virtue of Section 37 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, none has any right whatsoever to challenge the action which in fact is the action to be complained of only by the Society as such . The nomination if at all is not acceptable by the society than the society as a body corporate has to challenge the same. This right of challenge, nomination need not be stretched to the individual members independent of society whose bye-laws are binding on them. 22. The decisions cited at the Bar are pertaining to exercise of power under Section 80(2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. That being not the question here, said Section is of no avail to the petitioners, and even the State has not contended that they have appointed nominee in exercise of power under Section 80(2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. 23. From the aforesaid discussions the following conclusions could be made, namely:— (1) The Bank in question cannot be said to be entitled to raise maintainable challenge against the order of nomination only on the strength of sub Section (3) of Section 80 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, as sub Section (3) of Section 80 does not cover the Co-operative Bank for whom the State has guaranteed repayment of principal or payment of interest etc. (2) The petitions are capable of being rejected only on the aforesaid ground. (2) The petitions are capable of being rejected only on the aforesaid ground. However it would be appropriate at this stage to note that the right to challenge the order of nomination inures in favour of the Bank as a body-corporate and does not inure in favour of any individual member independent of the Bank as a body-corporate. Therefore on this count also it is required to be noted that the petitioners in light of the letters addressed by the Bank on 23/1/2011 and 24/1/2011 did not have right to maintain the petition contrary to the stand taken by the Bank which is reflected in its above said two letters. (3) The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2177 of 2011 also has not been supported in any manner by the Bank, as body-corporate capable of being sued and sue, could not have maintain petition challenging continuation of Respondent No. 2 the Registrar, Co-operative Societies on the board of the Bank. The main ground on which the continuation is challenged was insertion of sub Section (3) in Section 80 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, and as this Court has negatived the petition being Special Civil Application No. 223 of 2011 on identical challenge, the Court is of the view that the same reasoning would apply for rejection of this petition also. Moreover the additional ground urged into service that the Respondent No. 2 Registrar could not have acted as a member of the board in absence of fresh nomination orders would be not tenable in view of the explicit language of Section 80(1) of the Act. Thus reading with the bye-laws of the Bank and the provision of Section 80(1) it can be said that there was no requirement on the part of the State for issuing fresh nomination as the G.R. Dated 7/1/1994 is still in force and not shown to have been repealed or recalled. 24. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, both the petitions being bereft of merits are required to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Interim relief, if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated. FURTHER ORDER : After the pronouncement, Shri Mangukiya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in both these petitions requested for extension of the order dated 17/1/2011 for a period of ten days, so as to enable the petitioners to prefer Letters Patent Appeal challenging this judgment & order. Interim relief, if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated. FURTHER ORDER : After the pronouncement, Shri Mangukiya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in both these petitions requested for extension of the order dated 17/1/2011 for a period of ten days, so as to enable the petitioners to prefer Letters Patent Appeal challenging this judgment & order. The request is accepted. The order dated 17/1/2011 so far as it contains the clarification that ‘whatever transpired during pendency of these petitions is made subject to final outcome of these petitions’ would inure for a further period of ten days from today, i.e. up to 22/6/2011. P P P P P