JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned A.G.P. and Mr. Buch, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 and Ms. Narsinghani, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 5. The petitioner has taken out present petition against three orders viz. order dated 4-7-2012 (passed by District Registrar respondent No. 3), order dated 3-8-2013 (passed by Additional Registrar (Appeal)) and order dated 27-6-2014 (passed by Deputy Secretary (Appeal)) wherein concurrent findings on issues of facts are recorded and concurrent decisions are arrived at and recorded by three authorities. The petitioner has prayed that the said orders may be set aside. 2. In present petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 27-6-2014 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeal) i.e. respondent No. 1 whereby the said authority confirmed the order dated 3-8-2013 passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeal) who vide his order dated 3-8-2013 confirmed the order dated 4-7-2012 passed by the District Registrar. 3. So as to support and justify the relief prayed for in the petition the petitioner has mentioned certain facts. The facts are thus: "3.1. By order dated 4-7-2012 the District Registrar, after considering the objection by the petitioner, granted registration to the respondent No. 4-Society (which is a Mahila Milk Producers Co-operative Society), and thereafter, Additional Registrar (Appeal) and Deputy Secretary confirmed the said order by the Registrar and rejected the petitioner's objection against registration of respondent No. 4-Society. 3.2. From the details mentioned by the petitioner it has emerged that the petitioner is primary level Co-operative Milk Society which came to be registered in November, 1990. The area of operation of the society is Endala Village. 3.3. The petitioner has claimed that it is functioning since 1990 and until registration in favour of the respondent No. 4-Society came to be granted, it was procuring approximately 5,000 litres milk per day. It appears that somewhere in March, 2012 the respondent No. 4 society submitted a proposal/request for registration as primary milk producing society. The registration was requested for on the ground that it is framed, run and managed by women. 3.4. When the petitioner learnt that the respondent No. 4 has submitted proposal for registration, the petitioner-Society filed objection before the District Registrar and submitted that the said respondent No. 4 may not be registered. The registration was requested for on the ground that it is framed, run and managed by women. 3.4. When the petitioner learnt that the respondent No. 4 has submitted proposal for registration, the petitioner-Society filed objection before the District Registrar and submitted that the said respondent No. 4 may not be registered. So as to support its objection the petitioner-Society relied on the circular dated 7-11-2006. 3.5. Since, the petitioner-Society raised objection against the request for registration made by the respondent No. 4, the District Registrar i.e. respondent No. 3 herein fixed the matter for hearing so as to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No. 4-Society. The parties were directed to remain present for hearing on 26-6-2012. 3.6. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 5-Union had given report and opined that the registration of the respondent No. 4-Society will adversely affect the petitioner-Society. 3.7. The District Registrar considered the material on record including the report submitted by the respondent No. 5 and the objection raised by the petitioner, and thereafter, the District Registrar directed that the respondent No. 4-Society may be registered. 3.8. Accordingly, vide order dated 4-7-2012 the respondent No. 3 passed direction to grant registration to the respondent No. 4-Society. 3.9. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 4-7-2012 the petitioner-Society preferred appeal under Sec. 155 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Additional Registrar (Appeal) (i.e. present respondent No. 2) and after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the respondent No. 2 rejected the appeal and confirmed the order dated 4-7-2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar. 3.10. The petitioner carried the matter before the respondent No. 1 by filing revision application under Sec. 155 of the Act. 3.11. The respondent No. 1, after examining the matter as well as the material on record, reached to the conclusion that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Therefore, vide order dated 27-6-2014 the respondent No. 2 dismissed the revision application. 3.12. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has taken out present petition. As mentioned earlier said 3 orders are challenged in this petition." 4. Mr. Therefore, vide order dated 27-6-2014 the respondent No. 2 dismissed the revision application. 3.12. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has taken out present petition. As mentioned earlier said 3 orders are challenged in this petition." 4. Mr. Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are arbitrary and have been passed without application of mind and the authorities below have failed to consider and appreciate relevant facts and applicable provision. Mr. Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the conclusion that the registration of respondent No. 4-Society in the same area (i.e. the area which is the area of operation of petitioner-Society and the petitioner-Society is already running its activities and operations) will not adversely affect the petitioner is unjustified and contrary to the facts and also contrary to material on record. Mr. Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner-Society is classified as "A" Audit Society and there are 292 members which include 165 male members and 127 female members. Mr. Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-Society has invested about Rs. 15,19,723-61 ps. for purchasing bulk milk-cooler for storing about 4,000 litres of milk and petitioner-Society is giving all benefits to its members. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to and in violation of provision contained under Sec. 4 of the Act. Mr. Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the registration of respondent No. 4-Society is opposed to public policy and will adversely affect the petitioner-Society and its existence, and consequently, its members. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 5-Union has also opposed registration of respondent No. 4-Society and the circular dated 7-1-2006 is also not considered. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the authorities have failed to take into account that the area of operation of both the societies is the same, and that therefore, No Objection Certificate by the petitioner-Society was necessary and the registration is granted to the respondent No. 4-Society without such No Objection Certificate. 4.1. Mr. Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision in case of Nandotra Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2004 Guj. 253 . 5. Ms. Narsinghani, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 adopted the submission made by Mr. 4.1. Mr. Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision in case of Nandotra Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2004 Guj. 253 . 5. Ms. Narsinghani, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 adopted the submission made by Mr. Vaghela, learned Advocate for the petitioner. She submitted that it is true that the respondent No. 5 has started collecting/receiving milk from the respondent No. 4-Society, however, the respondent No. 5 supports the case of the petitioner-Society. 5.1. The submissions by learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela are opposed by the respondent No. 4-Society. The respondent No. 4-Society has filed affidavit and opposed the petition. In the reply affidavit, the respondent No. 4 has stated, inter alia, that: "3.1. The petitioner-Society has more than 250 members. None of the members of the petitioner-Society have shifted to and/or absorbed by respondent No. 4-Society. 3.2. Respondent No. 4-Society has just 134 members and none of the existing members of respondent No. 4-Society were ever members of the petitioner-Society. Thus, the petitioner-Society is not adversely affected because of the registration of respondent No. 4-Society. 3.3. Respondent No. 4-Society consists of women members. Under the right conferred upon the citizen to form an association under Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, respondent No. 4-Society has been registered on 4-7-2012. Since then, it is functioning. 3.4. None of the members of respondent No. 4-Society even used to give milk to the petitioner-Society. Earlier one Ganeshpura Dudh Utpadak Co-operative Society Ltd., used to obtain milk from some of the members of respondent No. 4-Society since 6-5-2005. 3.5. Thereafter, Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Dudhsagar Dairy) permitted the proposed society to supply milk directly to it w.e.f. 24-7-2007. 3.6. Pursuant thereto, approximately to 1,700 to 1,800 litres Milk was supplied daily to said Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited. However, as the wife of the Secretary of the petitioner-Society viz. Jebarben was the Director in the said Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, therefore, w.e.f. 1-10-2009, suddenly they stopped obtaining milk from the proposed society. Hence, the members used to supply milk to the private dairy like Vimal Dairy, Sardar Dairy. 3.7. Thereafter, w.e.f. 4-7-2012, respondent No. 4-Society has been registered. 3.8. Pursuant to the registration, the aforesaid Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, has ordered to obtain milk from respondent No. 4-Society w.e.f. 5-9-2014. Hence, the members used to supply milk to the private dairy like Vimal Dairy, Sardar Dairy. 3.7. Thereafter, w.e.f. 4-7-2012, respondent No. 4-Society has been registered. 3.8. Pursuant to the registration, the aforesaid Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, has ordered to obtain milk from respondent No. 4-Society w.e.f. 5-9-2014. 4. I say and submit that after its registration w.e.f. 4-7-2012, respondent No. 4-Society has undergone the statutory audit. Respondent No. 4-Society has been declared as "B" Class Society. 5. I say and submit that the financial condition of respondent No. 4-Society is good and is catering to the need of various members. 6. I reiterate that the petitioner-Society is not at all adversely affected because of registration and functioning of respondent No. 4-Society. No members of the petitioner-Society have switched over to respondent No. 4-Society after its registration. As stated hereinabove, the Registrar has specifically formed an opinion that registration of respondent No. 4 society will not adversely affect the petitioner-Society. On the contrary, members of respondent No. 4-Society are all women/female, therefore, under the policy of women empowerment movement, it is also in confirmation of "Mission Manglam Programmer" of the State Government." 6. Mr. Buch, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4-Society submitted that the orders impugned by the petitioner are well-reasoned orders and the authorities below have recorded cogent and germane reasons in support of the decision of granting registration to the respondent No. 4 Society for not entertaining appeal/revision filed by the petitioner, and that therefore, the said orders do not warrant any interference and the petition does not deserve to be granted. He also claimed that on account of registration of respondent No. 4-Society, the petitioner-Society is not going to be adversely affected. Mr. Buch, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4-Society emphasized that any members of the society have not switched over to respondent No. 4-Society after its registration. According to Mr. Buch, the respondent authorities have concurrently formed opinion and reached to the conclusion that registration in favour of the respondent No. 4 will not affect the petitioner-Society in light of the material available on record and after considering the opinion/report from the office of District Registrar of which reference is made in the order dated 4-7-2012. 6.1. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 filed further affidavit dated 8-6-2015, wherein the respondent No. 4 has stated, inter alia, that: "2. 6.1. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 filed further affidavit dated 8-6-2015, wherein the respondent No. 4 has stated, inter alia, that: "2. I state and submit that after the respondent No. 4-Society has been registered, it has undertaken excellent performance and catered to the need of its members of purchasing milk and supply thereof of the present respondent No. 3-Union. Upon conclusion of the audit for the year 2012, the present respondent No. 4-Society is considered as "B" class society. 3. I submit that the Collector, Patan has ordered allotment of land to the answering respondent for the purpose of establishing "Dudh-Ghar" admeasuring about 300 sq.yrds. 4. I submit that it has been a policy of the State of Gujarat to promote co-operative societies established and managed by women across the State. Therefore, many such societies have been registered. A writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 15396 of 2014 came to be filed by Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Mandali Ltd., and others seeking a writ of prohibition that no other milk producing society be registered in the village where there exists a milk producing society. However, the said writ petition came to be dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 17-11-2014. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the said societies preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1375 of 2014. However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 8-12-2014. 6. In the said order, this Hon'ble Court referred to another order dated 21-11-2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1251 of 2014. In the said order, this Hon'ble Court has specifically held that the policy of the Government for encouraging women by way of participation through milk co-operative society cannot be said as creating any prejudice of any constitutional provision or any legal provision. There is no breach of any statutory provision and that the concerned authorities have not abdicated from their statutory duties." 7. In light of the said affidavit, the respondent No. 4-Society submitted that the society is formed with the object and for the purpose of empowerment of women and when a society formed by women and with such objective is formed and when registration to such society is granted it may not be interfered with and it does not deserve to be opposed. 7.1. Mr. 7.1. Mr. Buch, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4-Society relied on the decision dated 8-12-2014 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1375 of 2014 (Sankhari Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. State of Gujarat). 8. I have heard learned Advocate for the contesting parties. So as to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, it is relevant to take into account the provision under Sec. 4 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Section 4 of the Act, inter alia, provides that: "4. Societies which may be registered:-- A society, which has as its object the promotion of the economic interests or general welfare of its members or of the public, in accordance with co-operative principles, or as society established with the object of facilitating the operations of any such society, may be registered under this Act: Provided that it shall not be registered if, in the opinion of the Registrar, it is economically unsound, or its registration may have an adverse effect upon any other society, or it is opposed to, or its working is likely to be in contravention of public policy." 8.1. The petitioner has placed reliance on the proviso of Sec. 4 and claimed that if the Registrar is satisfied that request for registration of any society will have adverse effect upon any other society, then, he may decline the request for registration of such society. Relying on the said provision, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in present case, it was established before the Registrar that the respondent No. 4-Society is granted registration in respect of the same area where the petitioner-Society is already conducting its operation and the said area is field of operation of the petitioner-Society and registration of the respondent No. 4 will have adverse effect on the interest of the petitioner-Society and its members. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the response submitted by the respondent No. 5. 8.2. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take into account and keep in focus that the respondent No. 4-Society is Mahila Co-operative Society and according to the respondent No. 4-Society, it is formed by women and is being run and managed by women with the object of upliftment and empowerment of women by providing source of income. 8.3. 8.2. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take into account and keep in focus that the respondent No. 4-Society is Mahila Co-operative Society and according to the respondent No. 4-Society, it is formed by women and is being run and managed by women with the object of upliftment and empowerment of women by providing source of income. 8.3. The Society which is formed with such objective applied for registration and considering the said vital aspect, the respondent-Registrar granted registration in 2012. 8.4. It is pertinent that by virtue of its object and the fact that it is a society which is formed and managed by and work for women and their upliftment, benefit and interest. 8.5. While it is true that the area of operation of respondent No. 4-Society is same as that of the petitioner-Society, but it is also not in dispute that the petitioner-Society and the respondent No. 4-Society co-exist since 2012. 8.6. The respondent No. 4-Society has claimed that after the registration came to be granted, the Collector has also allotted land (admeasuring about 300 sq.yds. vide order dated 26-11-2014) to the respondent-Society. 8.7. The respondent No. 4-Society has further asserted that after the registration was granted, the respondent No. 4-Society is supplying about 1,700 to 1,800 litres of milk to the Union. 8.8. It is also claimed by the respondent No. 4-Society that even before the registration came to be granted, the respondent No. 4-Society was operating as a proposed society and was supplying milk to the respondent No. 5-Union since January, 2007. 8.9. It is alleged by the respondent No. 4-Society that after the wife of the Secretary of the petitioner-Society came to be elected as Director in the Union somewhere in October, 2009 that the respondent No. 5-Union stopped accepting milk from the respondent No. 4-Society, but after the District Registrar granted registration, the respondent No. 5-Union has started accepting milk from the respondent No. 4-Society. 9. Now, so far as the provision under Sec. 4 of the Act is concerned, it obliges the Registrar to grant registration to "any" society which is formed with the object of promotion of economic interests or general welfare of its members or with the object of facilitating the operations of any society. 9.1. It is pertinent that Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India guarantees right to form an association. 9.1. It is pertinent that Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India guarantees right to form an association. In light of Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, objection against registration of a co-operative society which complies all requirements and fulfills all conditions prescribed by the Act, would not be maintainable and cannot be entertained. 9.2. However, the proviso of Sec. 4 confers power to the authority, considering that reasonable restriction on right to form association can be prescribed by law, to decline registration in favour of a society in case where he is satisfied that registration of a society is not opposed to and may adversely affect operation of other society or where it is in contravention of public policy or it is economically unsound. 9.3. The said provision ensures elimination of unhealthy competition and to protect objects and principles of co-operation principally in social sector. 9.4. For such avowed purpose and object, said special authority is conferred to the Registrar. 9.5. So as to oppose registration of respondent No. 4-Society, the petitioner placed reliance on said proviso of Sec. 4 of the Act. 9.6. Thus, only if it is established that (a) the society seeking registration is economically unsound and/or (b) its registration may adversely affect operation of any other society and/or (c) its registration militates against public policy, the registration can be declined. 9.7. Therefore, question arises whether in present case any one - or more than one - aspects out of various factors contemplated under said provision is established against the respondent No. 4-Society. 10. In this background, the objection of the petitioner and the issue as to whether the petition deserves to be entertained or not, has to be considered. 10.1. It is pertinent that the respondent-Society is formed by and managed - administered by women and it is formed with the object of empowerment of women i.e. its members and to protect their economic interests and to provide them source of income and economic stability and independence. The object for and with which the respondent No. 4-Society is formed coupled with the fact that it is a Mahila Co-operative Society formed and managed for and by women members put the respondent No. 4-Society in a different league and category. The object for and with which the respondent No. 4-Society is formed coupled with the fact that it is a Mahila Co-operative Society formed and managed for and by women members put the respondent No. 4-Society in a different league and category. Thus, the formation and registration and existence/operation of the respondent No. 4-Society actually complements, supports, advances and enriches public policy and it certainly does not militate against or is in contravention of or opposed to public policy. 11. Besides this, the financial details of the respondent No. 4-Society, which were made available before the Registrar, give out that the respondent No. 4-Society is not and cannot be said to be economically unsound. It has emerged from the record that the respondent No. 4-Society is registered since 2012 and prior to that it was functioning as proposed society and as of now it has 134 members and that presently, it is supplying about 1,700 litres milk to the respondent No. 5-Union and that from 1-4-2005 to 31-3-2012 the respondent society has earned net profit of about Rs. 1,39,071-64. Thus, it is not established and it cannot be said or held that the existence and registration of respondent-Society has or will have effect on the petitioner-Society. From all these facts, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 4-Society falls within purview of economically unsound establishment. 12. The respondent No. 4-Society has asserted that none of the members of the respondent No. 4-Society have migrated from the petitioner-Society or were ever members of the petitioner-Society. The said submission is not disproved and/or the petitioner has not proved - with specific details - that its member/members have migrated to the respondent No. 4-Society. On this count, it is necessary to note that it is not sufficient for the society which alleges that it is adversely affected by registration of other society to merely show that its membership is reduced but such society would be obliged to also establish that its members have migrated to said other society and that its receipts/intake (e.g. milk or agro-product or whatever material it deals with) has reduced and its business/operation are adversely affected in terms of members as well as income/business. In present case, the petitioner has not proved any of the relevant aspects/factors and/or has not disproved the facts and details placed on record by the respondent No. 4-Society. 13. In present case, the petitioner has not proved any of the relevant aspects/factors and/or has not disproved the facts and details placed on record by the respondent No. 4-Society. 13. Besides this, except alleging that the operations and functions of the respondent No. 4-Society will adversely affect its interest, the petitioner-Society has not placed any material either before the District Registrar or before the appellate or revisional authority which would demonstrate and establish that its interests are actually adversely affected. 13.1. Moreover, the petitioner also has not placed sufficient, cogent and satisfactory data and details or material to at least justify its apprehension and to scientifically and judicially satisfy the authority about its objection and to make out a case in legally sustainable manner to persuade and convince the authority to decline registration to a Mahila Co-operative Society. 13.2. Further, from the report/opinion submitted by the Co-operation Officer (Banking) from the office of District Registrar gives out that the population of the village is 4,000 to 4,500 and about 632 families stay there and even at the relevant time when the said officer from the office of District Registrar submitted the report, the respondent society was collecting about 1,200 litres milk and during the period from 14-2005 to 31-3-2012, the society had recorded profit, after deducting all expenses, to the tune of Rs. 1,39,071-64. It is not in dispute that the said details mentioned in the report of the Co-operation Officer (Banking) from the office of District Registrar was neither disputed nor any contrary facts were placed before the District Registrar. The aforesaid and all other relevant aspects and facts as well as material on record is taken into account and considered by the Registrar. 13.3. In this background, and from the foregoing discussion and in light of the material on record it has emerged that the District Registrar passed the order granting registration in favour of the respondent No. 4-Society in light of and after considering relevant aspects, facts and material and that the District Registrar has recorded cogent reasons in support of his conclusion to grant registration. The reasons recorded by the District Registrar are germane to the issues and are based on material available on record and his order does not suffer from any infirmity. 13.4. The reasons recorded by the District Registrar are germane to the issues and are based on material available on record and his order does not suffer from any infirmity. 13.4. Merely because the petitioner-Society expressed apprehension that its interest would be adversely affected, the Registrar was not under obligation to refuse registration only on the ground of apprehension and doubts on the part of the petitioner-Society, more so when the petitioner failed to establish and prove its allegations with supporting cogent and satisfactory evidence. 13.5. In this view of the matter, the decision by the Registrar cannot be faulted. 14. At this stage, it is appropriate to mention that the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision in case of Nandotra Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 Guj. 253 . So as to consider as to whether the said decision helps the case of the petitioner or not, it is relevant to take into account the facts in light of which the said decision is passed. The Court has summarized the relevant facts in Paragraph No. 3 of the said decision, which reads thus: "3. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner is a primary level Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali in the village Nandotra having population of 3,182. It is the case of the petitioner that it had, in all, 365 members. It appears that there was dispute between certain members of the petitioner-Society and there was also resolution passed by the petitioner-Society for expelling certain persons as members, but the said resolution was ultimately not approved by the District Registrar. Pending the aforesaid, it appears that the said group of persons against whom resolution for expulsion was passed moved proposal to the District Registrar for formation of new milk producers' co-operative society, namely, Arbudanagar (Nandotra) Milk Producers' Co-op. Society Ltd. The petitioner had filed objections intimating the District Registrar that the formation of respondent No. 4-Society shall adversely affect the existing society. The District Registrar considered the matter and as per the decision dated 24-4-2003 the registration was refused. The promoters of the respondent No. 4 preferred appeal being Appeal No. 88 of 2003 before the Addl. Registrar (Appeals) against the decision of the District Registrar and the Addl. The District Registrar considered the matter and as per the decision dated 24-4-2003 the registration was refused. The promoters of the respondent No. 4 preferred appeal being Appeal No. 88 of 2003 before the Addl. Registrar (Appeals) against the decision of the District Registrar and the Addl. Registrar (Appeals) after perusing the record found that the present respondent No. 4-Society is situated at a distance of about 100 Mtrs. and it also found that the district level Union has declined to give any recommendation for registration of the respondent No. 4-Society. He also found that if the respondent No. 4-Society is registered it will create not only number of complications but the existing society has invested huge amount of Rs. 17 lacs and if the registration is granted it will adversely affect the existing society and therefore ultimately the appeal was dismissed. The respondent No. 4 carried the matter before the State Government and the State Government found that since the minimum eligibility criteria is satisfied and as the proposed society is likely to have financial soundness, the revision was allowed by setting aside the order of the Additional Registrar (Appeals) and directed the Dist. Registrar to register the society. It has been submitted by Mr. Zaveri during the course of hearing, that thereafter, in August, 2003 the registration has been granted by the District Registrar pursuant to the order of the State Government and on 5-9-2003 this Court had passed the order issuing notice and after hearing it was ordered that the status quo shall be maintained to the effect that no new member shall be admitted. However, the case of the respondent No. 4 is that prior to the order dated 5-9-2003 passed by this Court 80 members are already admitted. The aforesaid order of State Government revision is under challenge in the present petition." 14.1. In Paragraph Nos. 7 and 9 of the said decision, the Court has observed and held, inter alia, that: "7. Therefore, in view of the above, what is further required to be considered is the adverse affect and the requirement to form a new society. Merely because there are two groups or one group is having minority and there is some dispute with the other group of majority cannot be said to be sufficient circumstances for formation of new society. Therefore, in view of the above, what is further required to be considered is the adverse affect and the requirement to form a new society. Merely because there are two groups or one group is having minority and there is some dispute with the other group of majority cannot be said to be sufficient circumstances for formation of new society. If there are disputes amongst the members it would be for the members concerned to resort to remedy available under law. At the same time, those who are in majority must see to it that no ill-treatment or discriminatory treatment is given to another group which is in minority but such existence of dispute cannot be said to be the only yardstick for directing the registration of the society. Right to form an association is a right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution subject to restriction. The said restrictions are regulated by the provisions of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Section 4 of the Act, inter alia, provides for registration. However, the proviso reads as under: "Provided that it shall not be registered, if in the opinion of the Registrar, it is economically unsound, or its registration may have an adverse affect upon any other society, or it is opposed to, or its working is likely to be in contravention of public policy." 9. Merely, because there is additional profit of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner-Society, in my view, it cannot be concluded that the registration of respondent No. 4-Society will not have any adverse affect. The adverse affect may be of various types including that of unfair competition. In the present case, as observed earlier, the petitioner-Society has made huge investment of about Rs. 17 lacs, not only that but if out of 365 suppliers of milk 80 are excluded it will have direct bearing on the functioning of the turnover of the petitioner-Society. Moreover, in a small village like Nandotra having population of 3186, normally, if one society is maintained, it would create not only harmonious atmosphere but would also promote the economic interest of other members and the village." 14.2. It is true that at the end and in the final result, the Court allowed the said petition by observing, inter alia, that: "11. It is true that at the end and in the final result, the Court allowed the said petition by observing, inter alia, that: "11. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the petition succeeds and the order passed by the State Government dated 8-8-2003 is quashed and set aside with a direction that the State Government shall consider the matter afresh keeping in view the aforesaid observations of this Court and shall decide the revision application afresh as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court." 14.3. However, it is, in this context, relevant to note that the Court found it proper to allow the said petition in light of the details mentioned in Paragraph No. 8 of the said decision, which reads thus: "8. The Government has formed the policy as per circular, dated 8-9-1989 and 7-11-1989 by way of guidelines. Further, the Government has also issued circular dated 18/21-7-2003 as guidelines for the purpose of granting registration. As per the said circular, it has been, inter alia, provided that as far as possible no other co-operative society should be granted registration in the same village, more particularly, in respect of Seva Sahakari Mandalis, Samudayak Kheti (Joint Agriculture) Society, Milk Co-op. Society etc. There are disputes between some of the members of the petitioner as well as of respondent No. 4 in the same village and it appears that the village is a small village where the population is only 3,182. The Addl. Registrar (Appeals), after considering the matter, had found four important aspects, viz., (i) the Dist. level Union did not recommend for registration, (ii) the proposed society is situated at a distance of about 100 mtrs. (iii) the existence of dispute amongst the members cannot be a only ground for formation of new society, (iv) the existing society has made huge investment of about Rs. 17 lacs for modernization and for establishing cold centre, and therefore, it will have adverse affect. The perusal of the order passed by the State Government shows that the State Government has not at all recorded any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances for making departure from normal policy or guidelines for granting registration. Not only that, but there is no reference to the aforesaid circulars/policy/guidelines for registration issued in July, 2003. The perusal of the order passed by the State Government shows that the State Government has not at all recorded any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances for making departure from normal policy or guidelines for granting registration. Not only that, but there is no reference to the aforesaid circulars/policy/guidelines for registration issued in July, 2003. It appears that while considering the matter the State Government has misdirected itself on the question of minimum eligibility criteria. The minimum eligibility criteria cannot be treated as a valid ground for making departure from the normal principles that one society at one village. If it is a village comprising of more population normally exceeding 10,000, the matter would have been different because there are instructions/guidelines issued for such purpose by the authority. Here, it has come on record that it was a small village having population of 3,182 persons. Therefore, the minimum criteria provides for functioning of a society cannot be treated as a ground for making departure from the normal policy or guidelines of the State Government Further, the State Government has not independently examined the material on the question of adverse affect which was found by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) in the decision in appeal. The aspect which is considered by the State Government is that even if the District Union has not recommended for registration after taking assurance from the society registration can be granted. The main issue which was required to be examined by the State Government was to ascertain whether the registration to respondent No. 4-Society will have adverse affect on the functioning of the petitioner-Society or not, more particularly, when the appellate authority in appeal had examined and had found that it will have adverse affect on the functioning of the petitioner society. Even otherwise also, if the record of the present case is examined it prima facie appears that when it is a small village having population of 3,182 persons and the society in all is having 365 members and if such 80 persons are excluded who are supplying milk of about 700 litres per day it can reasonably be concluded that the functioning of such new society with such 80 persons will have adversely affect on the functioning of the petitioner-Society, more particularly, when it has already made huge investment of about Rs. 17 lacs towards modernisation and for establishing cold centre etc." 15. 17 lacs towards modernisation and for establishing cold centre etc." 15. In present case, such facts are absent and do not exist. Moreover, the principal and major distinguishing feature in present case and the cited decision is that the society in favour of which the registration was granted (in respect of the same area where another society existed and was operating) was not a society formed and managed by women i.e. it was not a women's society whereas in present case, the society in whose favour the registration is granted is women's society and that is one of the major factors in addition to the aspects mentioned in the proviso of Sec. 4 of the Act which are also considered by the Registrar, which is taken into account by the respondent-District Registrar and the appellate and revisional authorities while granting/confirming the registration in favour of the respondent No. 4-Society. In this view of the matter, the decision relied on by the petitioner does not support the objections against the impugned decisions. 15.1. In the facts of the case, the proviso of Sec. 4 does not help the case of the petitioner and it cannot be said that the orders passed by the respondent No. 3 or respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 1 are contrary to the said proviso. There is nothing on record which would enable the statutory authority to conclude that the respondent No. 4-Society is economically unsound or its registration and operation had or will have any adverse effect on any other society or that its registration would be in contravention of public policy. Actually, forming and managing a co-operative society by and for women with object to uplift women by providing source of income, and thereby, provide financial security and self-esteem to women is laudable object and part of State's policy and cannot be said to be contrary to public policy. When none of the ingredients mentioned in the proviso of Sec. 4 exists in present case, the Registrar could not have refused the registration. In such circumstances, the order granting registration cannot be faulted. Besides this, the appellate authority and revisional authority have recorded similar and concurrent findings of fact and the said authorities have also reached to similar and concurrent conclusion and have also recorded sufficient cogent and satisfactory reasons in support of their conclusions and findings. 16. In such circumstances, the order granting registration cannot be faulted. Besides this, the appellate authority and revisional authority have recorded similar and concurrent findings of fact and the said authorities have also reached to similar and concurrent conclusion and have also recorded sufficient cogent and satisfactory reasons in support of their conclusions and findings. 16. In this view of the matter also, the petition against three orders recording concurrent findings of fact and similar conclusions does not deserve to be entertained. 16.1. Moreover, the findings recorded by the District Registrar are, as mentioned earlier, based on material available on record and the said findings cannot be said to be baseless or without application of mind, perverse or arbitrary. When the findings are based on cogent, relevant and germane reasons, then, this Court would not interfere with such findings. For this reason also, the petition fails and does not deserve to be entertained. 17. In the result, the petition fails. The petitioner has not been successful to assail the impugned orders and/or to establish that the impugned orders are perverse or arbitrary or suffer from any jurisdictional error. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons recorded above and in light of the factual background mentioned earlier, the Court is neither inclined nor convinced to interfere with the impugned orders. Therefore, the petition is not accepted and is rejected. Notice is discharged.