JUDGMENT 1. Rule Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Kariel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 waive service of Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Challenge made in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by Co-operative Housing Society against the order dated 8.7.2013 at Annexure-A whereby the respondent No.2 – District Registrar has ordered to join respondent Nos.3 and 4 – the members of the society as parties in the proceedings for approval of amendment in the bye-laws of the society. 3. It is the case of the petitioner society that in Annual General Meeting, convened by the society on 26.6.2011, Resolution No.8 was passed for amendment in Bye-law No.14(2) and for Bye-law No.91. The proposal dated 6.7.2011 for approval of the amendment in the bye-laws was then sent to respondent No.2-the District Registrar. The petitioner has averred that though Section 13(2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) requires the District Registrar to dispose of the application for registration of amendment in the bye-law within 60 days, he did not consider such proposal within the said time limit but sent notice dated 18.10.2011 asking the petitioner society to remain present on 10.11.2011 with certain records. The petitioner though provided necessary details before 11.11.2011 and requested by letter dated 9.1.2012 to immediately consider the application for registration of amendment in the bye-law, respondent No.2 sent communication dated 24.1.2012 calling upon the society to explain as regards the objection submitted by respondent No.3 against grant of amendment in the bye-laws. The petitioner has further averred that the petitioner replied to the said objections pointing out that respondent No.3 had no authority to object to the decision unanimously taken by the general body for amendment in the bye-laws. It is further case of the petitioner that even thereafter also, respondent No.2 did not consider the application of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was required to make a complaint before the Commissioner of Societies, Gujarat State, so as to direct respondent No.2 to take immediate action on the application for registration of the amendment in the bye-laws. It is further case of the petitioner that even thereafter also, respondent No.2 did not consider the application of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was required to make a complaint before the Commissioner of Societies, Gujarat State, so as to direct respondent No.2 to take immediate action on the application for registration of the amendment in the bye-laws. Unfortunately, even after the Commissioner asked respondent No.2 to decide such application, respondent No.2 did not do so and therefore, the petitioner again by letter dated 1.1.2013 brought to the notice of respondent No.2 the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act to point out that the application for amendment in the bye-law was required to be decided within 60 days from the receipt of the proposal for such purpose. It was then respondent No.2 issued notice dated 10.1.2013 to the petitioner society to remain present for hearing on 31.1.2013 and also stated that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had submitted their written representation on 7.2.2012. The petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the representation made by respondent Nos.3 and 4. The respondent No.2 however issued notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 informing them to remain present for hearing. The petitioner, therefore, objected to give hearing to respondent Nos.3 and 4. However, as averred in the petition, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 8.7.2013, whereby respondent Nos.3 and 4 are ordered to be joined as parties in the proceedings for registration of amendment in the bye-laws. The petitioner has thus come before this Court challenging the above-said order. 4. The petition is opposed by affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 stating that the petitioner has alternative remedy under Sections 153 and 155 of the Act. It is further stated that the order of the District Registrar joining the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as parties in the proceedings of Section 13 of the Act does not prejudice the petitioner in any manner. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also stated that they are the members of the Society and their contentions/objections deserved to be considered by the District Registrar while deciding the question about the registration of amendment in the bye-laws. It is also stated that the resolution passed in the general meeting was not in accordance with law for amendment in the bye-laws. 5. It is also stated that the resolution passed in the general meeting was not in accordance with law for amendment in the bye-laws. 5. The petitioner society has also filed rejoinder to the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply stating that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have got no locus to be joined as parties in the proceedings for approval of the amendment in the bye-laws and also further stating that respondent Nos.3 ands 4 have not challenged the resolution passed by the society and they also chose not to remain present in the meeting for passing such resolution. Thus, they are not entitled to be parties in the proceedings before the District Registrar for the purpose of considering the question about approval of the amendment in the bye-laws. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner society passed a resolution in the General Board Meeting held on 26.6.2011 for amendment in the bye-laws. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 chose not to remain present in the meeting and did not oppose the resolution passed for such purpose. Mr. Desai submitted respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also not challenged the resolution passed by the petitioner society for such purpose by taking any other proceedings. Mr. Desai submitted that the resolution for amendment of the bye-laws passed by the Society is a collective decision of majority of the members of the society in the meeting. Mr. Desai submitted that since the rights of the individual members are abridged in the society and since the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not objected to passing of the resolution for amendment in the byelaws and since such resolution is not challenged, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have got no locus to be heard by the District Registrar at the time of considering the question about giving approval to the amendment in the bye-laws. Mr. Desai submitted that Section 13 of the Act provides for giving of hearing only to the society in case where the District Registrar wants to refuse the registration of the amendment in the bye-laws. Mr. Desai submitted that if the District Registrar finds that the amendment proposed in the bye-laws is in accordance with the provisions of the Act then, there is no scope for giving hearing even to the society. Mr. Mr. Desai submitted that if the District Registrar finds that the amendment proposed in the bye-laws is in accordance with the provisions of the Act then, there is no scope for giving hearing even to the society. Mr. Desai submitted that looking to the legislative intent enshrined in Section 13 of the Act, when hearing at the threshold is not contemplated while considering the question about registration of the amendment in the bye-laws, the District Registrar ought not to have permitted the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be joined as parties for the purpose of giving them hearing while considering the question about registration in the amendment of the bye-laws. Mr. Desai submitted that when respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not participate in the meeting and did not challenge the resolution passed by the society for amendment in the bye-laws before any legal forum, they would not be otherwise entitled to be heard by the Registrar. Mr. Desai submitted that since the District Registrar has exceeded in his jurisdiction in permitting the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be parties in the proceedings for amendment in the bye-laws, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and it is not necessary for the petitioner to avail of alternative remedy. He thus urged to allow the petition. 7.1. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Desai has relied on the following decisions:- (1) In the case of Kanahya Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. Addl. Registrar Co-operative Societies in Special Civil Application No.5411 of 2005 dated 08.12.2009; (2) In the case of Harekrishna K. Vadhwani Vs. Vasupujya Smruti Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vibhag-1 reported in 2004(1) GLH 257 ; [ 2004 (1) GLR 221 ]; (3) In the case of Daman Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Haryana reported in (1985)2 SCC 670 ; (4) In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. C.O.D. Chheoki Employees Co-operative Society Limited reported in (1997)3 SCC 681 . 8. As against the above arguments, learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Kariel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 being the members of the society are entitled to be heard by the District Registrar while deciding the question about approval of the amendment in the bye-laws of the society. Mr. 8. As against the above arguments, learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Kariel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 being the members of the society are entitled to be heard by the District Registrar while deciding the question about approval of the amendment in the bye-laws of the society. Mr. Kariel submitted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have all throughout represented to the concerned authorities and are parties in other proceedings as regards mismanagement of the society by the present office bearers of the society and therefore, even though they have not challenged the resolution passed by the society for amendment in the bye-laws, they can certainly put forth their objections/ contentions before the District Registrar in the proceedings for amendment in the bye-laws. Mr. Kariel submitted that even if respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be considered to be necessary parties before the District Registrar, still they being the members of the society and being vitally affected by the outcome of the proceedings before the District Registrar, they can be said to be at least proper parties and therefore, no illegality could be said to have been committed by the District Registrar in permitting the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be parties before him in the proceedings for amendment in the bye-laws proposed by the petitioner society. Mr. Kariel submitted that the petitioner has deliberately avoided to avail the statutory alternative remedy. Mr. Kariel submitted that the petitioner has got the statutory alternative remedy under Sections 153 and 155 of the Act and there is no extraordinary circumstance pointed out by the petitioner to straightway invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Kariel submitted that the petitioner having not resorted to the statutory alternative remedy, respondent Nos.3 and 4 will be deprived of their legitimate right of revision and appeal if so required to avail of such remedy by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr. Kariel submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that the District Registrar has no jurisdiction to permit the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be parties in the proceedings pending before him. Mr. Kariel submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that the District Registrar has no jurisdiction to permit the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be parties in the proceedings pending before him. However, they have got objection only against giving of hearing to respondent Nos.3 and 4 and therefore, the discretion exercised by the District Registrar in hearing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 may not be interfered with by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Kariel submitted that if individual member has right to challenge the resolution passed by the society for amendment in the bye-laws, why not such individual member be permitted to be joined in the proceedings for approval of such bye-laws before the District Registrar so as to enable such member to put forth his point of view before the District Registrar. Mr. Kariel submitted that the petitioner has failed to show as to what prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by permitting the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be parties before the District Registrar. Mr. Kariel submitted that if no prejudice is to be caused to the petitioner by giving hearing to respondent Nos.3 and 4 while considering the question about the approval of amendment in the bye-laws, the impugned order passed by the District Registrar may not be interfered with by this Court especially when the amendment proposed is for the members of the society. Mr. Kariel thus urged to dismiss the petition. 8.1. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Kariel has relied on the following decisions: (1) In the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another Vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill reported in (2012)2 SCC 108 ; (2) In the case of Harekrishna K. Vadhwani Vs. Vasupujya Smruti Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vibhag-1 and others reported in 2004(1) GLH 257 ; (3) In the case of Banaskantha District Co-op. Union Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat through Deputy Secretary and others reported in 2011(2) GLR 1707. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that since the members of the Society are entitled to raise objection against the amendment in the bye-laws, to give them opportunity of hearing, the District Registrar has exercised his discretion to join respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that since the members of the Society are entitled to raise objection against the amendment in the bye-laws, to give them opportunity of hearing, the District Registrar has exercised his discretion to join respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr. Raval submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are also parties in other proceedings initiated against the Society and since they have complained about the mismanagement of the society, the District Registrar has allowed them to be joined as parties to have their say while deciding the question about registration of the amendment in the bye-laws of the society. Mr. Raval submitted since the District Registrar has jurisdiction to permit the members of the societies to be parties in any proceedings arising out of the resolution passed by the society, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order passed by the District Registrar while exercising the powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the record of the case, including the impugned order passed by the District Registrar, it appears that the petitioner society after calling the meeting for agenda item of amendment in the bye-laws passed a resolution by majority for amendment in bye-law No.14(2) and for new bye-law No.91. The amendment proposed in bye-law No.14(2) is to give written notice in respect of expulsion of the members of the society and to give such member an opportunity of presenting his case before the General Body of the society. In unamended bye-law, the period for such notice was provided of 15 days. Whereas, the proposed amendment though has continued with giving of written notice but without the specified period. By introducing the proposed new bye-law No.91, the society resolved for regulation/ Rules for sale/ transfer of the house by the members of the society. Such Regulation/ Rules amongst the other thing would provide for prior permission for sale of the house by the member and transfer fee of Rs.50,000/-at the time of asking of prior permission of the society for transfer of the house. 11. After having passed the resolution for the above amendments in the bye-laws, the society put forth the amended bye-laws for approval/ registration thereof by the District Registrar. 12. 11. After having passed the resolution for the above amendments in the bye-laws, the society put forth the amended bye-laws for approval/ registration thereof by the District Registrar. 12. At this stage, Section 13 of the Act concerning the amendments in the bye-laws of the society is required to be referred. The same reads as under:- “13. Amendments of bye-laws of societies: (1) No amendment of the bye-laws of a society shall be valid until registered under this Act. For the purpose of registration of an amendment of the bye-laws, a copy of the amendment passed, in the manner prescribed, at a general meeting of the society, shall be forwarded to the Registrar. (2) If the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment so forwarded is not contrary to this Act or the rules, he may register the amendment; Provided that no order refusing to register the amendment shall be passed except after giving the society an opportunity of being heard. Provided further that the application for registration of amendment of bye-laws of a society shall be disposed of within sixty days from the date of its receipt. (3) When the Registrar registers an amendment of the bye-laws of a society, he shall issue to the society a copy of the amendment certified by him, which shall be conclusive evidence of its registration. (4) Where the Registrar refuses to register an amendment of the bye-laws of a society, he shall communicate the order of refusal, together with his reasons thereof, to the society.” 13. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act provides that a copy of the amendment passed in the manner prescribed in the General Body of the society is required to be forwarded to the Registrar for the purpose of registration of the amendment in the bye-laws. Subsection (2) thereof provides that if the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment so forwarded is not contrary to the Act or the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules (‘the Rules’ for short), he may register the amendment. However, the first proviso to sub-section (2) provides that no order for refusing to register the amendment proposed by the society shall be passed except after giving the society an opportunity of being heard. However, the first proviso to sub-section (2) provides that no order for refusing to register the amendment proposed by the society shall be passed except after giving the society an opportunity of being heard. By second proviso added by the Gujarat Act No.1 of 2008, the Registrar is mandatorily required to dispose of the application for registration of the amendment in the bye-laws of the society within 60 days from the date of its receipt. 14. In the present case, the petitioner society forwarded the amendment for its registration vide proposal dated 6.7.2011. However, the District Registrar has still not disposed of the application for amendment though mandatorily required to dispose of such application within 60 days. Though no consequences for not disposing of the application for amendment within 60 days is provided, however, the mandate given by the legislature to dispose of the application within 60 days from its receipt strongly suggests that the application for amendment in bye-laws is to be dealt at the earliest so as to enable the society to act upon its intention for bringing the amendment in the bye-laws and not to render such intention frustrated by delaying the decision on such application. 15. In the above context of legislative intention, if Section 13 of the Act providing for dealing with the application for amendment in the bye-laws is examined, the function of the Registrar is only to be satisfied as to whether the amendment proposed in the bye-laws is not contrary to the Act and the Rules. If the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment proposed is not contrary to the Act and the Rules, he is not required to give hearing to the society. He may on his own register the amendment in the bye-laws and the question of giving hearing to the society would not arise. He will be required to give hearing to the society if he forms opinion to refuse registration in bye-laws. Such hearing to the society is to enable the society to satisfy the Registrar that the amendment proposed by the society is not contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. He will be required to give hearing to the society if he forms opinion to refuse registration in bye-laws. Such hearing to the society is to enable the society to satisfy the Registrar that the amendment proposed by the society is not contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Beyond the above scope of hearing to be provided to the Society, the provisions of Section 13 of the Act do not provide for giving hearing to any member of the society while deciding the application for amendment in the bye-laws of the society. 16. If the District Registrar gives hearing to the individual members, it may be endless process before him for taking decision on application for amendment in the bye-laws and in such circumstances, the District Registrar may not be in a position to decide such application at the earliest as intended by the legislature. Therefore, considering the Scheme of Section 13 of the Act, it could well be said that the hearing to individual member except the society is not contemplated, as the Registrar is not to take any adverse decision affecting the right of any individual member. The Registrar is concerned with satisfying himself as to whether the amendment proposed in bye-law is in consonance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. 17. Once a person becomes a member of a Co-operative society, he loses individuality on a society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the bye-laws. Thus, the individual rights of a member are abridged in the society and once the society takes collective decision in the General Body meeting by passing a resolution, unless such resolution is challenged and is declared bad in law and set aside, each member is bound by such resolution. It is the case of the petitioner society that respondent Nos.3 and 4 neither participated in the meeting wherein the resolution was passed for amendment in the bye-laws, nor have challenged such resolution by taking any legal proceedings. Be that as it may, so long as the resolution passed by the petitioner society holds the field, individual member cannot be heard to say that before acting upon the resolution for the purpose of amendment in the bye-laws, he is required to be heard. Be that as it may, so long as the resolution passed by the petitioner society holds the field, individual member cannot be heard to say that before acting upon the resolution for the purpose of amendment in the bye-laws, he is required to be heard. Neither Section 13 of the Act provides for such hearing to the individual member nor such hearing could be read in the provisions of this Section. 18. Rule 6 of the Rules reads as under:- “6. Amendment of bye-laws: Bye-laws may be made, altered of abrogated by a resolution passed at a general meeting of the society: Provided that; (a) due notice of any proposal to make, alter or abrogate the bye-laws is given in accordance with the bye-laws to the members of the society. (b) the resolution is passed by not less than two thirds of the members present, and voting at the general meeting at which a quorum shall be present or at an adjiurned general meeting at which if quorum is not present within half an hour from the time appointed for holding the meeting, the members present shall form quorum a copy of the resolution is forwarded to the Registrar within the period of two months from the date of the meeting; (c) a copy of the existing bye-law or bye-laws so marked as to show the alterations proposed to be made, and four copies of the proposed amendments signed by the chairman of the society shall be attached to the copy of the resolution along with a copy of the notice and other information required by the Registrar.” 19. The purpose of the above Rule is to provide opportunity to the members of the society to lodge their objections in the meeting of the society against the proposed amendment. Once due notice to the member is given by the society of any proposal to make, alter or abrogate the bye-laws, as required by bye-laws and once resolution is passed by not less than two third of the members present, no member can claim any further right of being heard at the time of registration of the amendment in the bye-laws before the District Registrar. 20. 20. In the case of Daman Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para 11 as under:- “11.The next submission of the learned counsel was that S. 13(8), (9) and (10) did not make express provision for the issue of notice to the members of the concerned Cooperative Societies and were, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice. He argued that in the absence of any provision, the rules of natural justice may be read into the provisions and notice to the members of the affected societies was imperative. Otherwise, he argued, members of one society would be forced against their will and without being heard to associate themselves with members of another society. We have no hesitation in rejecting this submission also. Once a person becomes a Member of a cooperative society, he loses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the by-laws. He must act and speak through the society or rather, the society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the society as a body. So if the statute which authorises compulsory amalgamation of co-operative societies provides for notice to the societies concerned, the requirement of natural justice is fully satisfied. The notice to the society will be deemed as notice to all its members. That is why S. 13(9)(a) provides for the issue of notice to the societies and not to individual members. S.13(9)(b), however, provides the members also with an opportunity to be heard if they desire to be heard. Notice to individual members of a co-operative society, in our opinion, is opposed to the very status of a co-operative society as a body corporate and is, therefore, unnecessary. S.13(9)(b), however, provides the members also with an opportunity to be heard if they desire to be heard. Notice to individual members of a co-operative society, in our opinion, is opposed to the very status of a co-operative society as a body corporate and is, therefore, unnecessary. We do not consider it necessary to further elaborate the matter except to point out that a member who objects to the proposed amalgamation within the prescribed time is given, by S. 31(11), the option to walk-out, as it were, by withdrawing his share, deposits or loans as the case may be.” Relying on the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court in the case of Harekrishna K. Vadhwani (supra), has held and observed in para 9 as under:- “9.In any event, when the General Body of the society has taken the decision, I am of the view that even if the petitioner had any grievance against the decision of the General Body of the society, proper course for the petitioner was to challenge the said decision under Section 96 of the Act. It is an admitted position that the decision of the General Body of the society is not challenged by the petitioner under Section 96 of the Act and, therefore, if the decision of the General Body of the society is to operate, the will of the majority of the members itself is to prevail for the purpose of division of the society and if such is the situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner, in the capacity as a member of the society, would be justified in challenging the decision of division only on the ground that he is going to be prejudiced or affected. I am inclined to take such a view because the petitioner has not been able to produce any reliable material to show that any prejudice is caused to him. The question of division in case of direct and clear individual prejudice to the member is kept open.” 21. It will be beneficial to refer the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. And Another Vs. The question of division in case of direct and clear individual prejudice to the member is kept open.” 21. It will be beneficial to refer the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. And Another Vs. District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban) & Others reported in 2005(2) GLR 1530, in para 21 of the said judgment, which read as under:- “21.Under the Indian Contract Act, a person sui juris has the freedom to enter into a contract. The bye-laws of a cooperative society setting out the terms of membership to it, is a contract entered into by a person when he seeks to become a member of that society. Even the formation of the society is based on a contract. This freedom to contract available to a citizen cannot be curtailed or curbed relying on the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India against State action. A right to enforce a fundamental right against State action, cannot be extended to challenge a right to enter into a contract giving up an absolute right in oneself in the interests of an association to be formed or in the interests of the members in general of that association. This is also in lieu of advantages derived by that person by accepting a membership in the Society. The restriction imposed, is generally for retaining the identity of the society and to carry forward the object for which the society was originally formed. It is, therefore, a fallacy to consider, in the context of co-operative societies, that the surrendering of an absolute right by a citizen who becomes a member of that society, could be challenged by the said member by taking up the position that the restriction he had placed on himself by entering into the compact, is in violation of his fundamental right of freedom of movement, trade or right to settle in any part of the country. He exercises his right of association when he becomes a member of a society by entering into a contract with others regulating his conduct vis-a-vis the society, the members constituting it, and submerging his rights in the common right to be enjoyed by all and he is really exercising his right of association guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India in that process. His rights merge in the rights of the society and are controlled by the Act and the bye-laws of the society.” 22. In the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others reported in (2012)4 SCC 407 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para 58 to 61 as under:- “58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, Ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria. 59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons. 60. Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. (Vide: Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H. M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 385 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 578 ; Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2602 ; Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33 : (2001 AIR SCW 4022); and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Company and Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 766 : ( AIR 2009 SC 892 : 2008 AIR SCW 8212)). The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in correct perspective at all. 61. In such a fact-situation, the complaint filed by the respondent No. 5 could at the most be pressed into service as a material exhibit in order to collect the evidence to find out the truth. In the instant case, as all the charges proved against the appellant have been dealt with exclusively on the basis of documentary evidence, there is nothing on record by which the complainant could show that the General Body meeting was not called, as statutorily required, by the appellant intentionally.” 23. Learned advocate Mr. Kariel however relied on the decision in the case of Banaskantha District Co-op. Union Ltd. (supra). In fact, rather than helping the respondent Nos.3 and 4, this judgment would lend support the case of the petitioner. In the said decision, this Court has held and observed in para 13 and 14 as under:- “13. Against the aforesaid backdrop, now let us examine the contentions raised by learned advocate for the respondent no.4 who admittedly have not protested when the resolution came to be passed, pursuant to the agenda item in the meeting dated 29.06.2009. The resolution is explicitly clear which reflects the amendment in the bye-law. Against the aforesaid backdrop, now let us examine the contentions raised by learned advocate for the respondent no.4 who admittedly have not protested when the resolution came to be passed, pursuant to the agenda item in the meeting dated 29.06.2009. The resolution is explicitly clear which reflects the amendment in the bye-law. Learned advocate for the respondent no.4 is not unjustified in arguing that the item no.5 is cryptic and did not denote adequately the purport of amendment or the details of amendment but that alone, in my view, would not be considered to be so sufficient as to disturb the approval when the general body meeting approved the bye-law and the resolution shows details by the respondent no.4 being really aggrieved by such a situation or a proposed amendment, then nothing prevented him from participating in the meeting and lodging his protest against the same. The protest, which is sought to be made out before the authority is in respect of lack of appropriate notice to the members in respect of the details of the proposed amendment, then in the case item no.5 in the agenda, would be sufficient enough to put him in guard, that there is a proposal for amendment so as to give representation to women and in the case had he been so vigilant and conscious he could have remained present and protested against the same. The resolution could have been challenged by him in appropriate forum. As he has not done either of the things, now at a belated stage filing of the appeal bearing coming elections in mind, would indicate that this was an attempt to throw spanner in the wheel otherwise it was running smoothly. Therefore, in my view this petition is required to be allowed. The orders of authorities are bereft of merits as the authorities have not appreciated this aspect and gone on technicality without recording reasons as to why the society should not be believed that the agenda item along with annexures was sent. The petition is required to be allowed. 14. The impugned orders are based upon only the agenda item and has proceeded as if there is no enough notice and proposed amendment to the members. The members, therefore, could have challenged the resolution in fact which contain in detail the proposed amendment which was conferred into the resolution of the society in its general body meeting. 14. The impugned orders are based upon only the agenda item and has proceeded as if there is no enough notice and proposed amendment to the members. The members, therefore, could have challenged the resolution in fact which contain in detail the proposed amendment which was conferred into the resolution of the society in its general body meeting. Such a resolution has not been challenged by any member including the present petitioner, would have been sufficient ground for rejecting the Appeal as well as the Revision, would have been sufficient ground for holding against the present respondent no.4. The order in the Appeal could not have been, therefore, made quashing the approval. The approval is inconsonance with the law laid down in respect of reserving two sets in the managing committee for women and the respondent no.4 being not in any way indicating any likely prejudice cannot be permitted to through spanner in the wheel by way of belated Appeal, challenging the said approval. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the prejudice is sought to be indicated in the submission is not itself effect of increasing the voters list, as the fees for lady member is reduced from Rs.500/-to 100/-. This, in my view, cannot be a ground for resisting the amendment. The reduction of the fees is clearly mentioned in the resolution and fact remains to be noted that when the resolution itself is not challenged, there is no scope for disturbing the said bye-law subsequently on a specious ground that the society was not heard while according approval with slight modification. The Court hasten to add here that the requirement of law is that Registrar if is interested in making any change or modifying the proposed amendment, then he has to here the society but in the instant case society has not made any grievance and it was accepted the amendment as approved, which is slightly different, than the original proposed amendment but that in itself would not faced the respondent no. 4 with any right to challenge the same in absence of any prejudice likely to be caused to him. The inflation of the voter list have farfatched not germen to the real challenge and hence on this count also the petition is required to be allowed. The orders impugned are required to be quashed and set aside.” 24. 4 with any right to challenge the same in absence of any prejudice likely to be caused to him. The inflation of the voter list have farfatched not germen to the real challenge and hence on this count also the petition is required to be allowed. The orders impugned are required to be quashed and set aside.” 24. Though in the said case, the Court was not called upon to decide the issue about giving of hearing to the members of the society while deciding the application for amendment in the bye-laws, however, it is observed by the Court that the members if do not challenge the resolution cannot be resist the amendment in the bye-laws. 25. Learned advocate Mr. Kariel has raised objection against the entertaining the petition on the ground that the petitioner has got alternative statutory remedy under Section 153 or 155 of the Act. But, since the District Registrar has passed the impugned order to join the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act which is not supported by the Scheme of the said Section and when such order could be said to be in excess of his jurisdiction, the objection raised by learned advocate Mr. Kariel cannot be accepted. The Court when finds that the District Registrar has acted in derogation of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, even if there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner, the Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned advocate Mr. Kariel has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) (supra), to point out that wherever there is a statutory and alternative remedy available, the High Court would not entertain the writ petition and relegate the parties to avail of alternative remedy. However, in that very judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that availability of alternative statutory or other remedy by itself may not operate as an absolute bar for exercise of the writ jurisdiction by the Court. It will normally depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts and circumstances of the present case clearly called for exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. 26. It will normally depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts and circumstances of the present case clearly called for exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. 26. The Court finds that the District Registrar has gone beyond the mandate and intent of the legislature given in Section 13 of the Act by passing the impugned order to join the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as parties in the proceedings of the application for registration of amendment in the bye-laws of the petitioner society. The impugned order, therefore, cannot stand scrutiny of law, requires to be quashed and set aside. 27. In the facts of the case, the Court finds that the District Registrar for no reason has whiled away time for taking decision on the application of the petitioner society for registration of the amendment in the bye-laws. Therefore, while exercising the writ jurisdiction, the District Registrar is required to be directed to decide and dispose of the application of the petitioner society for registration of the amendment in the bye-laws of the society within the stipulated time. 28. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.7.2013 at Annexure-A passed by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (City) Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. The District Registrar-respondent No.2 is directed to decide and dispose of the application of the petitioner society for registration of the amendment in the bye-laws of the petitioner society within a period of FIFTEEN DAYS from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the extent stated above. Direct Service is permitted. Petition allowed.