JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2004, passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad ("the Tribunal" for short) in Appeal No. 429/2001 and to restore the judgment and order dated 09.04.2001, passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana, in Lavad Suit No. 433/1987 (new No. 321/1990). 2. Rule was issued in the petition on 27.06.2006. Though served, none appears for the respondent-Shivshanker Cooperative Housing Society Limited. Even after the passage of several years, the position has remained the same and the respondent-Society has chosen not to put in an appearance before the Court. In order to do complete justice, this Court has requested Mr. Neeraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader to assist the Court, as the State Government is not party to the proceedings. He has kindly consented to do so. 3. A brief factual background of the matter is required to be narrated. The petitioner herein was appointed as the Secretary of the respondent-Society, by a Resolution dated 31.08.1986 and was performing his duties as such. There was an audit of the accounts of the society for the period between 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1986, which revealed that an amount of Rs. 35,000/- had not been deposited by the petitioner in the concerned Bank. When the audit was completed, it is alleged that the petitioner, in the presence of the Auditor and other members of the respondent-Society, admitted that an amount of Rs. 33,450.11ps. had not been deposited by him in the Bank and that he had used it for personal purposes. This admission was recorded in writing and later produced as Exhibit-27 before the Board of Nominees. The respondent-Society, therefore, preferred the above-mentioned Lavad Suit in the Court of the Board of Nominees, Mehsana, to recover the amount of Rs. 35,000/- from the petitioner (original defendant). The Board of Nominees dismissed the suit of the respondent-Society (original plaintiff) by an order dated 09.04.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-Society preferred Appeal No. 429/2001 before the Tribunal. After adjudicating the matter, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2004, whereby the judgment of the Board of Nominees, rejecting the suit, has been quashed and set aside. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment of the Tribunal before this Court. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-Society preferred Appeal No. 429/2001 before the Tribunal. After adjudicating the matter, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2004, whereby the judgment of the Board of Nominees, rejecting the suit, has been quashed and set aside. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment of the Tribunal before this Court. 4. Though a number of contentions were raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal on the merits of the matter, however, before this Court the main contention that has been urged is that the memorandum of the appeal preferred by the respondent-Society before the Tribunal has been signed by one Shri Naresh Joshi, who describes himself as the Vice Chairman of the respondent-Society. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the memorandum of appeal, no seal of the society has been affixed under the signature showing that Shri Naresh Joshi is, in fact, the Vice Chairman. Moreover, there is no Resolution of the society authorizing Shri Naresh Joshi to file the appeal before the Tribunal. No such Resolution has been produced by the respondent-Society before the Tribunal. 5. Mr. Dev Patel, learned advocate for Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has strongly emphasized the above contention and has indicated that in order to examine the same this Court had directed that the record and proceedings of the Tribunal be made available. He has submitted that upon perusal of the record and proceedings, it transpires that there is no document on record indicating that Shri Naresh Joshi, Vice Chairman of the respondent-Society, had been authorized by way of a Resolution passed by the said Society to prefer the appeal before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the suit before the Board of Nominees was instituted by the father of Shri Naresh Joshi, who was the Chairman of the society and duly authorized to do so. When the appeal was instituted through another person, it was incumbent upon the respondent-Society to have produced the Resolution authorizing Shri Naresh Joshi to prefer the appeal. 6. It is further submitted that this contention was raised by the petitioner in the proceedings before the Tribunal, by way of written submissions. In fact, the Tribunal has noted this contention in the impugned order. Having done so, the Tribunal has not dealt with the said contention at all but has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. 6. It is further submitted that this contention was raised by the petitioner in the proceedings before the Tribunal, by way of written submissions. In fact, the Tribunal has noted this contention in the impugned order. Having done so, the Tribunal has not dealt with the said contention at all but has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. It is alleged that, as this contention would go to the root of the matter, the Tribunal ought to have rendered a finding thereupon. As this has not been done, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Neeraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that a procedure is required to be followed while instituting proceedings before the Board of Nominees. Referring to Rule-42 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules, 1965 ("the Rules" for short), it is submitted that the said rule provides that a dispute under Section-96 shall be referred in writing in Form-F, with suitable modifications, as may be necessary. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has then referred to Form-F, especially Note (3) thereof, wherein it is stated that when a society is a disputant, a copy of the resolution of its Committee or Board of Directors shall accompany the application. It is further submitted by Mr. Ashar that the appeal before the Tribunal was a continuation of the proceedings initiated before the Board of Nominees, therefore, the requirements laid down in the Rules for the institution of such proceedings would also be relevant and applicable to the appeal preferred before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the appeal has been filed by a different person than the one who had instituted the suit before the Board of Nominees. It was, therefore, necessary for the respondent-Society to have authorized the said person to do so on its behalf by issuing a Resolution that ought to have been produced before the Tribunal. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that upon perusal of the original record of the Tribunal, no such Resolution authorizing Shri Naresh Joshi to prefer the appeal on behalf of the respondent-Society is found. Consequently, the absence of a Resolution would be fatal to the appeal, in view of the provisions of Rule-42 of the Rules. 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader who has made submissions in order to assist the Court. Consequently, the absence of a Resolution would be fatal to the appeal, in view of the provisions of Rule-42 of the Rules. 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader who has made submissions in order to assist the Court. The Court has also perused the contents of the petition and the original record and proceedings of the Tribunal. 9. After examining the record and proceedings, it is evident that the memorandum of appeal preferred on behalf of the respondent-Society before the Tribunal is signed by one Shri Naresh Joshi, who describes himself as the Vice Chairman of the said Society. However, the signature is not fortified by the seal of the Society. Be that as it may, the point that clinches the issue is that there is no authorization in the form of a Resolution of the Society authorizing Shri Naresh Joshi to prefer the appeal. Hence, the appeal before the Tribunal has been filed without authorization from the Society, which constitutes an inherent and fundamental defect. 10. The proceedings before the Tribunal are a continuation of those instituted before the Board of Nominees. Rule-42 of the Rules refers to Form-F, which shall be the form in which the dispute under Section-96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, shall be filed before the Board of Nominees. Form-F indicates the requirement of name, age, occupation, address etc. that have to be fulfilled. At the end of Form-F, there is a Note with three clauses. Note (3) clearly states that when a society is disputant, a copy of the Resolution of its Committee or Board of Directors shall accompany the application. In the present matter, the respondent-Society is the disputant, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent-Society to fulfill the requirement of Form-F. Though the Society did fulfill this requirement insofar as the proceedings before the Board of Nominees are concerned, however, when the matter came in appeal before the Tribunal, the appeal was filed through a different person than the one originally authorized. When the Society institutes the appeal through another person, other than the person who had instituted the suit, it was incumbent upon it to produce before the Tribunal a Resolution authorizing Shri Naresh Joshi to prefer the appeal on its behalf. 11. When the Society institutes the appeal through another person, other than the person who had instituted the suit, it was incumbent upon it to produce before the Tribunal a Resolution authorizing Shri Naresh Joshi to prefer the appeal on its behalf. 11. There is no dispute regarding the fact that this contention was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal. It is specifically noted in the impugned order. However, after having referred to said contention, the Tribunal has proceeded to ignore it and has chosen not to deal with it, at all. In the view of this Court, this is a fundamental flaw in the judgment of the Tribunal that deserves rectification. 12. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication and a finding on the issue whether Shri Naresh Joshi, Vice Chairman of the respondent-Society, who had preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, was authorized by a Resolution of the respondent-Society to do so. 13. Accordingly, the following order is passed:- The impugned order dated 25.11.2004, passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Appeal No. 429/2001, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after hearing the parties, especially on the point of the authorization of Shri Naresh Joshi by way of a Resolution of the respondent-Society, to file an appeal. In view of the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2005 and the original proceedings were initiated in the year 1986, the Tribunal is requested to accord priority to the matter and decide it as expeditiously as possible. The petition is partly-allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. It is clarified that apart from the issue of authorization to file the appeal, the Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the matter. The Tribunal is at liberty to take an independent view on all other issues. The record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal, forthwith. The Court would be failing in its duty if it does not record its appreciation of the efforts put in by Mr. Neeraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, by rendering valuable assistance to the Court.