JUDGMENT 1. As in both the petitions, common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered simultaneously. 2. The legal heirs, as ordered in Civil Application No.311 of 2003 dated 28.9.2011 are permitted to be on record and Mr.Dipen Desai, learned Counsel appears for the legal heirs of original Respondent No.2 in SCA No.10520 of 1999. 3. Special Civil Application No.7801 of 193 has been preferred by the petitioner Sant Ratan Vijay Market Refusicanbin Holders Coop. Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society for the sake of convenience) to quash and set aside the order dated 15.6.1993 passed by the District Registrar, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-B to the additional-affidavit-in-reply dated 2.3.2011 filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3/1 and No.3/2 as well as the order passed by the District Collector dated 9.7.1993 at Annexure-A to the petition, whereby as per the order of the District Registrar, original respondent No.3 is ordered to be admitted as member and as per the order of the Collector, Mamlatdar was directed to take over the possession of Shop No.65 and hand over to respondent No.3. 4. The short facts of the case appears to be that there were certain cabin holders in the city of Patan. Thereafter, those cabins were to be vacated and in view of those cabins, the District Collector had granted land and as per the Scheme, those cabin holders had to form a Society and Society had to make a construction and the shops were to be allowed. As per the petitioner Society, respondent No.4 was entitled to be admitted as the Member of the Society and consequently was also entitled for allotment of Shop No.65, which was the only shop left out after appropriate allotment to the eligible person. 5. Whereas, as per the original respondent no.3, he was having cabin and he was entitled for the allotment of the shop. The grievance of respondent no.3 was that he was not admitted as Member by the Society. 5. Whereas, as per the original respondent no.3, he was having cabin and he was entitled for the allotment of the shop. The grievance of respondent no.3 was that he was not admitted as Member by the Society. Therefore, respondent No.3 approached to the District Registrar and it appears that earlier the District Registrar vide letter dated 19.1.1993 intimated to the President of the petitioner Society that the rights of respondent No.3 be properly taken care and appropriate action should be taken, but it appears that thereafter the matter remained as it was and the Society did not admit respondent No.3 as Member and continued with the admission of membership of respondent No.4. At that stage, respondent No.3 approached to the District Registrar for issuance of appropriate direction to admit him as Member. The District Registrar issued notice and after hearing, in purported exercise of his power under Section 24 of the Gujarat Coop. Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) passed an order dated 15.6.1993. The grievance on the part of the petitioner was that the District Registrar never communicated the order to the Society but forwarded copy to the District Collector and Mamlatdar and the District Collector, based on the District Registrar s order, without giving any opportunity of hearing, directed the Mamlatdar to take over the possession of the Shop No.65 and hand over to respondent No.3. As per the petitioner, neither the Society was intimated about the order dated 15.6.1993 prior to the taking over of the possession or handing over of the possession, nor it was intimated about any order of the Collector directing the Mamlatdar for taking over of the possession. When the Society has found that the possession has already been taken over and handed over to the respondent No.3, it had inquired into the matter and thereafter the present petition before this Court for challenging the order passed by the District Registrar dated 15.6.1993 as well as the order of the Collector dated 9.7.1993, which is based on the order of the District Registrar. 6. Pending the present petition, respondent No.4 of Special Civil Application No.7801 of 193 has approached to the State Government against the order of the District Collector by preferring revision. 6. Pending the present petition, respondent No.4 of Special Civil Application No.7801 of 193 has approached to the State Government against the order of the District Collector by preferring revision. The State Government found that the District Collector has not independently exercised the power but the original order is passed by the District Registrar dated 15.6.1993 and the said order is not under challenge. Further the State Government, in revenue jurisdiction, had no power to hear the revision against the order of the District Registrar and, therefore, ultimately, the State Government found that no relief can be granted and the revision cannot be maintained and hence, the said revision was dismissed. Under these circumstances, Chandrakant Bherumal Malani, who is respondent No.4 in SCA No.7801 of 1993, has preferred Special Civil Application No.10520 of 1999 for challenging the order passed by the Collector, which is the subject matter of SCA No.7801 of 1993 and also the order passed by the State Government in his revision. In the said SCA, the said petitioner has also challenged the order of the District Registrar dated 15.6.1993. Further, the prayer is made to direct the respondents to hand over the possession of Shop No.65 of the Society to him, which had been taken over pursuant to the impugned orders. 7. I have heard Mr.B.S. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the Society, Mr.Jayswal, learned AGP appearing for the State Authorities i.e. District Collector, State Government as well as District Registrar in both the matters and Mr.Dipen Desai, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and his legal heirs in SCA No.7801 of 1993 and Special Civil Application No.10520 of 1999 and Mr.Raval, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in SCA No.7801 of 1993 and for the petitioners in SCA No.10520 of 1999. 8. The following positions are emerging from record:- (a) The District Registrar, under the Gujarat Coop. Societies Act, has passed the order directing respondent No.3 to be admitted as Member in purported exercise of his power under Section 24 of the Act. The said aspect is apparent inasmuch as the perusal of the order itself shows that he has reproduced Section 24 of the Act on internal page 6 of the order and thereafter, he has recorded reasons and exercised the power under Section 24 and the direction has been issued to the Society to admit respondent No.3 as Member. The said aspect is apparent inasmuch as the perusal of the order itself shows that he has reproduced Section 24 of the Act on internal page 6 of the order and thereafter, he has recorded reasons and exercised the power under Section 24 and the direction has been issued to the Society to admit respondent No.3 as Member. The said aspect is also apparent from the operative portion of the order as well as the reasons recorded therein and Mr.Desai is not in a position to show that the order has not been passed in purported exercise of the power under Section 24 of the Act. 9. It is very unfortunate that the officer of the rank of District Registrar was not aware about the legal position that Section 24 of the Act has been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Amreli District Cooperative Sale & Purchase Union Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported at 1984 (2) GLR 1244 as back in 1984. The relevant observations are at paragraph 55, which read as under:- 55. As regards sub-sec. (1) of sec. 24, we are of the opinion that it also suffers from the same vice of it being violative of Article 19(1)(c). The marginal note of sec. 24 indicates that it provides for open membership which only postulates that the society has to keep its doors open for all those persons who are prepared to subscribe to their objectives and there should be no restrictive clause refusing membership on the ground of caste, creed or religion etc. Admittedly it can never mean that any person can demand as of right admission to any co-operative society. This position is accepted by the State Government in the reply affidavit as stated above. Whether a person should be admitted even though he may be qualified to the membership of a society is a matter within the internal management of that society. It is for the members of the society to decide whether or not a person seeking admission should be enrolled as a member. Sec. 24(1) in our opinion is either redundant or violative of Article 19(1)(c). If as to with whom one should associate is inherent content of the right to associate under Article 19(1)(c) any provision, as in the nature of sec. Sec. 24(1) in our opinion is either redundant or violative of Article 19(1)(c). If as to with whom one should associate is inherent content of the right to associate under Article 19(1)(c) any provision, as in the nature of sec. 24(1), investing the right of admission in any person duly qualified under the Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society, unless there is sufficient cause for refusing the membership, is clearly violative of Article 19(1)(c) since the condition that admission can be refused only on the ground of the cause which must be objectively sufficient cannot be said to be a restriction necessary on the ground of public order or morality even if it is reasonable. In any case, an aggrieved person has always a right to move the Courts by seeking appropriate remedies by regular civil action in civil Court or before Registrar by invoking his special jurisdiction where the membership is refused on flimsy and trivial grounds. Sub-sec. (2) also, in our opinion, providing for the deemed membership to such person who is not communicated the decision of the society to which he is seeking the membership within a period of three months, is equally offensive of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution for the self-same reasons. The consequential provisions of appeal and limitation thereof in sub-secs. (3), (4), (5) and (6) would also fail since the main provisions have been held to be suffering from the infirmity as stated above. Sub-sec. (7) also becomes redundant in the view of the matter which we have taken on the impugned provision in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 22. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions contained in secs. 22(2) and (24(1) & (2) are bad in law and void inasmuch as they are violative of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. 10. As per the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the matter against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amreli District Cooperative Sale & Purchase Union Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) was carried before the Supreme Court, but the operation of this part of the order has not been stayed and subsequently, the State Government has withdrawn the appeal from the Supreme Court. 11. Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) was carried before the Supreme Court, but the operation of this part of the order has not been stayed and subsequently, the State Government has withdrawn the appeal from the Supreme Court. 11. As such in view of the said situation, the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court for striking down Section 24 of the Act would prevail. In any case, no other decision of any higher forum for setting aside the judgement by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Amreli District Cooperative Sale & Purchase Union Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) is brought to my notice. 12. The District Collector has not independently exercised the power while passing the impugned order Annexure-A, but has exercised the power based on the order of the District Registrar and the direction is given to the Mamlatdar. The said aspect is more confirmed even by the State Government in revisional jurisdiction, a copy whereof is produced in the proceedings of SCA No.10520 of 1999. 13. Even if the District Collector was to exercise the power under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for taking over the possession of Shop No.65 from the allottee of the land, which was the Society, no hearing whatsoever has been given to the Society by the District Collector. 14. In view of the aforesaid factual aspect read with the legal position referred to herein above, it is apparent that the District Registrar has exercised the power based on a statue, which has been struck down by this Court in exercise of constitutional power. Consequently, resultant effect would be that the District Registrar has exercised the power for which there was no source of power in law available to him. 15. Mr.Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 attempted to contend that the District Registrar had power to issue instruction and he also submitted that if on facts this Court is satisfied that if interference is made in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution with the illegal order another illegality would be created and hence, this Court may decline the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. 16. The contention that the District Registrar has power to issue instruction is ill-founded and, therefore, the order should be treated under those powers is ill-founded for two reasons; one is that the District Registrar has expressly stated that the power is available under Section 24 of the Act and he has issued direction under Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be heard from a party, beneficiary of the order that District Registrar that the order passed under other powers available to District Registrar by way of supervision to the Society. The second reason is that Mr.Desai has not been able to show any provisions of the Act or Rules under which such an order could even be said as in purported exercise of the power. Therefore, in my view, the said attempt cannot be countenanced. 17. On the aspect of not allowing the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction by way of exercise of discretion is concerned, it deserves to be recorded that it is not a matter where a mere illegality has entered while exercising the power by the District Registrar, but is a matter where the issue of maintaining the authority and the decorum and dignity of this Court is to be considered. If this Court, in exercise of the constitutional power, has struck down a particular section from the statute book, no source can be derived from the said section or statute, otherwise such would not only run counter to the decision of this Court, but would also result into lowering down the authority of this Court under Constitution for which the power has been exercised and section is struck down. 18. It is hardly required to be stated that if the question is of maintaining the decorum and dignity of this Court as against the exercise of the power by the executive, the Court would lean its discretion to uphold the dignity and decorum of this Court and more particularly Constitutional Court as against the exercise of the power by any executive for which there is no source of authority at all. Therefore, in my view, once there is no source of power and such exercise of power is running counter to the decision of this Court and if exercise of such power is so permitted, the resultant effect would be to lower down the authority and dignity of this Court, the petitioner should not be denied to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court just on a lame excuse by the respondent No.3, who is beneficiary of an illegal order without jurisdiction. Therefore, in my view, the aspect that on facts, respondent No.3 had any right, would be irrelevant when the officer, who has exercised the power, had no authority under the law. 19. Even otherwise also, even if such contention is considered for the sake of examination, the District Registrar has entered into the arena of adjudicating the rights of the respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 for entitlement for shop as well as for becoming member. The District Registrar has no authority for such purpose and the competent forum, even if any, would be under Section 96, that also in a case where the respondent No.3 is in a position to show that he has been admitted as the member and the Society has acted in contravention to the bye- laws. The fact shows that the respondent No.3 was not admitted as Member and he was seeking admission as member. Under these circumstances, examining the order of the District Registrar in either way, may be under Section 24 or under Section 96, the only conclusion would be that the District Registrar had no authority or competence to issue such a direction and consequently to pass the order dated 15.6.1993 and the order cannot at all stand in the eye of law. 20. The aforesaid would lead to examine the legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector dated 9.7.1993. The very order of the Collector Annexure-A shows that the same is after taking into consideration the order passed by the District Registrar and based on the order of the District Registrar, he has issued such direction. 20. The aforesaid would lead to examine the legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector dated 9.7.1993. The very order of the Collector Annexure-A shows that the same is after taking into consideration the order passed by the District Registrar and based on the order of the District Registrar, he has issued such direction. Therefore, as such if the order of the District Registrar dated 15.6.1993 cannot be maintained in the eye of law, since the same is absolutely without any authority under the law, the action taken by the District Collector by way an execution of the order of the District Registrar has to fall on ground without there being any legal and valid order in the eye of law. The State Government in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has also found that the order of the District Collector is not an independent exercise of power but is by way of implementation of the order of the District Registrar. Under these circumstances, if the main order of the District Registrar dated 15.6.1993 cannot be sustained in the eye of law, the District Collector also can be said had no power to implement such an illegal order passed by the District Registrar for which there was no authority with the District Registrar. 21. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstances that no hearing whatsoever has been given by the District Collector before the exercise of so-called power to execute the order of the District Registrar. Therefore, the order of District Collector could also be in breach of the principles of natural justice on the face of it and consequently, would result as arbitrary in in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the impugned order of the District Registrar dated 15.6.1993 as well as of the District Collector dated 9.7.1993 cannot be sustained and hence, the same are quashed and set aside. The action taken pursuant to such illegal and without there being any authority under the law will have to be remedied back by the District Collector, since the District Collector has executed the said illegal order of the District Registrar. The action taken pursuant to such illegal and without there being any authority under the law will have to be remedied back by the District Collector, since the District Collector has executed the said illegal order of the District Registrar. Consequently, the District Collector will be required to take possession from respondent No.3, who was entrusted the possession by him through Mamlatdar and the possession of the said shop No.65 will be required to be handed over to the Society. After the Society receives the possession of the shop, it will be for the Society to examine the entitlement thereof, whether of Chandrakant Bherumal Malani or any other party in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. 23. SCA No.7801 of 1993 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. 24. So far as SCA No.10520 of 1999 is concerned, the relief prayed in SCA No.10520 of 1999 so far as quashing and setting aside of the order of the District Collector and consequently the order of the State Government would also stand granted to the extent that the order of the District Collector dated 9.7.1993 shall stand quashed and set aside. 25. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions made earlier, the relief prayed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to hand over the possession of Shop No.65 to the petitioner of SCA No.10520 of 1999 cannot be granted. However, as observed earlier, it will be for the Society to find out the entitlement of Shop No.65, whether the petitioner herein or any other person in accordance with law. 26. Hence, the said SCA No.10520 of 1999 shall stand partly allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.