JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirad such for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rohan Yagnik for the authorities of the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. Baiju Joshi for the fourth respondent. 2. The petitioner has prayed to set aside order dated 27th January, 2015 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Agriculture and Cooperation Department-respondent No. 1 herein allowing Revision Application No. 124 of 2014. Further prayer is made to restore order dated 10th July, 2014 passed by the second respondent-Additional Registrar in Revision Application No. 57 of 2012. Yet another part of the prayer is to direct the District Registrar to afford hearing pursuance of notice issued under Section 86 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. 2.1 By order dated 06th February, 2012 the District Registrar found that notice dated 29th September, 2011 issued to the fourth respondent society was not liable to be acted upon as the explanations given in respect of the allegation in the notice were satisfactory and acceptable. 3. The petitioners are the members of the fourth respondent-cooperative housing society. It appears that upon their complaints and by other members, more particularly complaints-cum-representations dated 07th February, 2011 and 25th February, 2011 alleging certain irregularities in the conduct of affairs of the society, the competent authority issued notice dated 29th September, 2011 to the society under Section 86 of the Co-operative Societies Act. In response to the notice the office bearers of the society filed their written reply. After considering the reply, the District Registrar, Rajkot passed order dated 06th February, 2012 recording his findings and stating that the explanation furnished to the various issues raised in the notice were acceptable and the proceedings were required to be closed. 3.1 The petitioners filed Revision Application No. 57 of 2012 before the Additional Registrar who in his order dated 10th July, 2014 remanded the case to the District Registrar, primarily on the ground that the District Registrar had not taken into account the defence and the representations of the petitioner-members. The Additional Registrar while remanding the case directed that the District Registrar shall decide afresh on all the points of show cause notice and by speaking order. It was against the said order dated 10th July, 2014 of the Additional Registrar (Appeals) that the Revision Application was filed by the society which came to be allowed. The Additional Registrar while remanding the case directed that the District Registrar shall decide afresh on all the points of show cause notice and by speaking order. It was against the said order dated 10th July, 2014 of the Additional Registrar (Appeals) that the Revision Application was filed by the society which came to be allowed. This order in Revision is sought to be impugned by the petitioners in this petition. 4. The fourth respondent society filed affidavit-in-reply and contested the case and the petition of the petitioners. 5. Now, going through the issues and aspects of allegations in the notice under Section 86 of the Act, as noted by the District Registrar (a) the first issue was that it was not made known as to who became the President and Secretary of the Society after June, 2000 meeting and further that the settlement arrived at in respect of the land of the society was against the interest of the members and the same was not made known to any member; (b) the second allegation was about the wrongful induction of 40 members and that certain amounts deposited in Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited on 11th June, 2000, 12th June, 2000, 16th March, 2000, 06th July, 2000 and 31st December, 2000 were benami transactions; (c) the third was the allegation about the membership given to a person who was a land broker and that in the year 2002-03 large amount was withdrawn from the bank account; (d) the fourth allegation was about not disclosing before the members in the Agenda of Annual General Meeting dated 25th June, 2000, the factum of Civil Suit Nos. 01 of 2000, 02 of 2000 and 03 of 2000; (e) the fifth allegation was again about withdrawal from Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank's savings account; (f) the sixth allegation was in respect of illegal cancellation of members; (g) the seventh issue was again about not giving information about the President and Secretary of the society; (h) the next was in respect of not giving information about civil and criminal cases pending against or instituted by the society; and (i) the ninth and tenth allegations was that the Special General Meeting was not called in accordance with bye-law and that certain transactions in the bank account were not explained. It was alleged that a settlement was arrived at by the society which was detrimental to the interest of the members. 5.1 It appears that in respect of each of the said issues, explanation was submitted by the society which was considered by the District Registrar. Going through the contents and findings of the District Registrar in his order dated 06th February, 2012, he recorded that "(i) the issue about the first question in relation to general body meeting and the constitution of committee was subject matter of dispute and was decided as per order dated 28th September, 2006 of the District Registrar. It was observed that the said issue fell under Section 96 of the Act and could not have been subject matter of notice under Section 86; (ii) the transaction in the account of Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank were examined by the auditors and auditors did not find anything objectionable; (iii) about the alleged giving of membership to a land broker Mr. Tanna, it was factually recorded that the membership was given prior to 2002-03 and presently he was not made member. The bank account transaction to the tune of Rs. 03,26,385/- in relation to the said allegation in the year 2002-03 was also subjected to audit and auditor had cleared the same without raising any objection; (iv) the question about Annual General Meeting dated 25th June, 2000 was raised after 11 years. In any view, it was already decided by order of the Registrar dated 29th June, 2006 as noted above. The said aspect fell under Section 96 of the Act; (v) allegation in respect of transaction of withdrawal of Rs. In any view, it was already decided by order of the Registrar dated 29th June, 2006 as noted above. The said aspect fell under Section 96 of the Act; (v) allegation in respect of transaction of withdrawal of Rs. 01,94,480/- was audited and no objection was raised; (vi) cancellation of membership was an issue not falling within the purview of Section 86 and dispute could have been raised under Section 96 of the Act; (vii) similarly, about the allegation of change of President or Secretary of the society was a matter falling within the compass under Section 96 and inquiry under Section 86 in this regard is not permissible in eye of law; (viii) about issue No. 8, all the questions were examined in the audit for the relevant years and no comment was generated by the auditors; (ix) the question of calling of Special General Meeting of the society was an issue falling under Section 96, however nobody had complained earlier; (x) about the settlement in the suits, it was denied that there was any act by the society detrimental to the society and members and that the matter was pending in court of law." 5.2 It was further recorded by the Registrar that upon the application of the very applicants-petitioners, earlier the question of appointment of Registrar was subject matter of litigation and Special Civil Application No. 1946 of 2003 as well as Letters Patent Appeal No. 393 of 2003 were agitated before the High Court and since the High Court had already decided the issues, allegations in that count made by the complainants-petitioners could not be gone into. 6. Therefore the complaints on the basis of which notice under Section 86 was issued by the authority at the instance of petitioners-complainants contained 10 issues of which issue Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 were subject matter of audit at the relevant time. The auditors did not find any irregularity in the transactions in question or in the accounting figures of withdrawal, etc. pertaining thereto. All those objections were considered and cleared by the auditors finding them without any legal or factual vice. The other aspects in the issue Nos. 1, 6, 9 and 7 were, in the opinion of the Registrar, could not fell within the ambit of Section 86 of the proceedings. pertaining thereto. All those objections were considered and cleared by the auditors finding them without any legal or factual vice. The other aspects in the issue Nos. 1, 6, 9 and 7 were, in the opinion of the Registrar, could not fell within the ambit of Section 86 of the proceedings. In any view, the explanations were given by the society with regard to each of the issue and they were found tenable by the District Registrar. Furthermore, in respect of the said issues, litigations were already filed and decisions were given by the competent authority including this Court, therefore they were even otherwise such issues sought to be re-raised. The District Registrar rightly reasoned that in view of decisions of this Court in Special Civil Application and Letters Patent Appeal, the complaints in respect of that issues were not liable to be entertained. 6.1 Nor does it appear to be correct, the ground that the petitioners' case was not considered. The premise that the petitioners' case had not gone into consideration of the District Registrar, on which the Additional Registrar (Appeals) based his decision to remand the case, was manifestly erroneous. It could be noticed as it explicitly recorded by the District Registrar that the representation was made by the petitioners. In paragraph 6 of the order, it is recited by the District Registrar that Harishchandra Joshi-petitioner No. 5 herein had made his submissions and represented the case. Similarly, the representations of petitioner No. 1-Ghanshyam Purshottambhai Kacha and Mansukhbhai Purshottambhai Kacha was also considered and their submissions were noted as is reflected from paragraph 6 of the order of the District Registrar. It appears that Jitendra Shah-the fourth petitioner had died. Even the other members Hitesh Vrajlal Chotaliya, Manoj Pravinlal Mehta, Rekhaben Rameshchandra Mehta, etc., were permitted to make representation and after giving opportunity to all of them the District Registrar passed the order. 6.2 The petitioners' case was considered, their representations were taken into account and they had opportunity to submit their case. The contention about breach of natural justice is a hollow contention and could hardly be countenanced more particularly no prejudice has occurred to the petitioners in any way as their case was duly and properly considered by the District Registrar before arriving at his decision. 6.3 The order of the Registrar was a detailed order with proper reasoning supplied. The contention about breach of natural justice is a hollow contention and could hardly be countenanced more particularly no prejudice has occurred to the petitioners in any way as their case was duly and properly considered by the District Registrar before arriving at his decision. 6.3 The order of the Registrar was a detailed order with proper reasoning supplied. The Registrar dealt with each of the allegation in the notice under Section 86 and the corresponding explanation given thereto. The findings were properly reached. It is difficult to comprehend as to what considerations weighed with the Additional Registrar in directing when he remand the case on the ground that District Registrar was required to consider the case on merits and pass a speaking order. The order of the District Registrar was indeed a speaking order with elaborate consideration of the matter and with detail reasoning. The District Registrar recorded his findings with application of mind for accepting the explanation of the society to the allegations in notice under Section 86, whereafter he came to the conclusion that notice was required to be withdrawn. It was a trite submission made on behalf of the respondent society that order of remand was not only sans the acceptable ground, either on facts or in law, for rendering the case, but would have led to reopening of stale and old concluded issues, which was entirely unjustified. 6.4 The order, whereby the Additional Registrar remanded the case was exceptionally erroneous as no ground subsisted on the basis of which a valid order of remand could have been passed by the Additional Registrar. The Deputy Secretary (Appeals) & the Revisional Authority allowed the Revision Application by setting aside order of the Additional Registrar noticing all the aspects. The impugned order of the revisional authority was entirely right in recording that the order of the District Registrar was proper and was backed by adequate reasons. It was noticed that most of the issues were dealt with in the audit conducted at the relevant time and nothing objectionable was found. 7. The order of the Revisional Authority was eminently just and proper, not warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned order dated 27th January, 2015 of the Deputy Secretary & Revisional Authority passed in Revision Application No. 124 of 2014 fails and the petition is hereby dismissed. 7. The order of the Revisional Authority was eminently just and proper, not warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned order dated 27th January, 2015 of the Deputy Secretary & Revisional Authority passed in Revision Application No. 124 of 2014 fails and the petition is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.