JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the respondent No. 1, whereas learned AGP Mr. Yagnik for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. Perused the record. The petitioner is a Cooperative society under relevant provisions of law and therefore, it is claiming protection of the legal and fundamental rights guaranteed to such society under the constitution of India. Thereby, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under articles 14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the constitution of India read with provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. 3. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to quash the following order:- 3.1 The judgment and order dated 11.02.2015 passed in revision No. 206/2014, by Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Gujarat. 3.2 The judgment and order dated 19.03.2014 passed in Revision No. 210/2013, by the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Gujarat. 3.3 Order dated 19.10.2013, being order No. Aashan/Housing/Dharam/02/385-386/2013, passed by District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Housing). 4. The petitioner has also prayed for interim relief so as to stay the execution and operation of above orders pending this petition with such other and further orders that the court deems just and proper in the interest of justice. 5. When petition was filed in the month of April, 2015, by an order dated 07.05.2015, the co-ordinate bench has ordered to issue notice to the other side, however, interim relief was not granted as prayed for. The matter has been dragged from May, 2015 till date but there was no interim relief in favour of the petitioner till date and ultimately, now, it has been heard on merits for admission but being found lack of merits, disposed of by this judgment. 6. The sum and substances of the petitioner's case is to the effect that: "(1) The petitioner is Housing Society registered under the provisions of The Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and thereby its activities are governed by the rules and bye-laws relating to Housing Societies, copy of which is produced at Annexure-C. (2) One Mr. Mansukhlal Maganlal Bhatti was a member of the Society, who was allotted Plot No. 12 and as per the record of the society the Plot No. 12 was ad-measuring 333.33 sq yds. Mr. Mansukhlal Maganlal Bhatti was a member of the Society, who was allotted Plot No. 12 and as per the record of the society the Plot No. 12 was ad-measuring 333.33 sq yds. Mr. Mansukhlal Maganlal Bhatti was a member since 11.03.1960 and sanad in favour of him is produced at Annexure-F. (3) Respondent No. 1 is a Trust registered under the provision of Bombay Trust Act, 1950, since 06.02.2002. Copy of Registration of the Trust is produced at Annexure-G. (4) It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has, without prior permission of the Charity Commissioner, purchased the plot No. 12 from the legal heirs of Mr. Masukhlal Maganlal Bhatti by registered sale-deed dated 21.05.2002. Copy of such sale-deed is produced at Annexure-H. (5) It is further alleged that in such Sale-deed, the measurement of the plot has been wrongly disclosed as 482 sq. yds. (403.44 sq. mts.) and that legal heirs of Mr. Mansukhlal Maganlal Bhatti have also not obtained permission from the Managing Committee of the society, prior to executing the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. (6) On 12.06.2002, the respondents had applied to the petitioner to transfer the plot in their names. As the application is at Annexure-I. However, the petitioner society has declined the membership of the Housing Society to the respondents by their letter dated 05.09.2003, contending that sale transaction was not in consonance with the bye-laws/regulations of the society. (7) Therefore, petitioner returned the cheque, which was submitted by the respondent No. 1 towards the membership fees for being a member of the petitioner society by the respondent No. 1 for the purpose, the petitioner is relying upon the decision of Annual General Meeting of the Co-operative society, which was held on 25.01.2003, wherein, because of opposition by majority of the members of the society, order or resolution No. 2 was passed to decline the membership to the petitioner-trust. (8) Representation made by the respondent No. 1, thereafter, to reconsider the decision regarding membership of the society, was rejected pursuant to bye-laws of the society with sound and cogent reasons by letter dated 10.07.2006. Copy of such reply is produced at Annexure-K." 7. The record shows that thereupon, respondent No. 1 has approached the District Registrar for it's grievance regarding refusal of petitioner to accept it as a member of the society. 8. Copy of such reply is produced at Annexure-K." 7. The record shows that thereupon, respondent No. 1 has approached the District Registrar for it's grievance regarding refusal of petitioner to accept it as a member of the society. 8. The District Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Rajkot has after considering as many as 11 (eleven) documents, which includes the judgment and order dated 29.04.2002 in Special Civil Application No. 5478/2002, by this High Court so also legal opinion of retired judge of this High Court and other relevant documents including representation of both the sides, by its order dated 19.10.2013, which is impugned in this petition, decided that respondent shall be accepted as a member by the petitioner society with certain conditions viz. "(1) So far as measurement of plot is concerned, since office of the Registrar has not to decide such issue, no decision has been taken by it on such issue. (2) The respondent - trust shall abide by all Government Rules and Regulations while making construction on such plot, (3) Before, starting any such construction, the trust shall obtain requisite/necessary permission for such construction from Government, semi-government authorities." 9. Therefore, it becomes clear that, since the year 2003 when the respondent has purchased plot No. 12 in question there is some dispute with reference to the actual size or measurement of the plot. Whereas the District Registrar has not entered in such dispute while directing the petitioner to confirm the membership of the respondent. Thereby, when it is clear and certain that so far as, the measurement and size of the plot in question is concerned, when authority under the Co-operative Societies Act is not empowered to decide such issue, it is necessary for the petitioner to agitate such issue in appropriate manner before competent Court/Authority at the earliest. However, record shows that, petitioner has not raised such issue in appropriate manner before appropriate forum or Competent Court or Authority and therefore, at this stage, the issue raised by the petitioner regarding measurement of the plot would be irrelevant. 10. During the course of arguments, though such issue has been raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to come out with specific facts and details that how and on which site there is encroachment by the respondent No. 1. 10. During the course of arguments, though such issue has been raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to come out with specific facts and details that how and on which site there is encroachment by the respondent No. 1. If at all they have encroached certain additional area than total area of plot No. 2 which was allotted to Mansukhlal Maganlal Bhatti, the original member of the petitioner society. The scrutiny of record and site map confirms that there is a least or no chance at all of encroaching any portion of the society; since, there are only two adjoining plots with plot No. 12, and therefore, if at all there is an encroachment by the respondent No. 1, it would certainly, result into decrease in the size of adjoining plots or shortening of road of the society or public road on one side. Therefore, in absence of any such evidence regarding encroachment of any land by the respondent No. 1 and more particularly non encroachment of any land of the petitioner society, the objection of the petitioner with the society not to accept the respondent No. 1 as a member under the pretext of unproved encroachment is not proper and cannot sustain as such. Therefore, at least on that ground, there is no substance in the petition and therefore, petition cannot be allowed on such ground. 11. However, petitioner has raised two more issue viz. "(1) Respondent No. 1 being a trust cannot purchase the property in housing society and cannot be a member of a housing society. (2) The activity by the respondent No. 1 being a trust which would be beyond the purpose of housing, it would result into nuisance if religious programmes are being arranged and therefore, petitioner society is right in refusing to accept respondent No. 1 as its a member and thereby to hold, occupy and utilize the plot for purpose other than housing purpose." 12. Amongst the above referred two issues, one issue is absolutely legal issue i.e. entitlement of public trust to hold the property in housing society, whereas, second issue is absolutely based on presumption and assumption without any cogent, reliable and sufficient evidence, because from whatever material produced on record by the petitioner it is not even forming prima facie evidence to hold that occupancy of plot in housing society by respondent No. 1 being religious trust, would result into nuisance. 13. So far as legal issue regarding entitlement of the trust is concerned, the law is well settled in form of different judgments; whereas even provision of law is also very much clear which provides that no-one restricts the right of a public religious trust to acquire, hold, occupy and utilized a residential plots and carry out construction in a housing society. 14. In the case of Shanti Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. District Registrar Co-operative Societies, 2002 (2) GLR 1768 , this Court has as back as in the year 2002 held that, "public trust and its members can be joined as a member of a Co-operative Housing Society." 15. In the case of Laxmi Nivas Co-operative Housing Society vs. District Registrar and Others, 2014 (3) GLR 2201, the Full Bench of this Court has considered the provision of section 22(2) and confirmed that it is not unconstitutional. 16. If, we peruse, the provision of section 22 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, it becomes clear that as per section 22(1)(f), if a public trust registered or deemed to have been registered under The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, it can be admitted as the member of the society and as provided in section 22(2) every person seeking admission as a member of society, if duly qualifying as a member of the society under the provision of the Act, the rules, and the bye-laws of the society, may make an application to the society for membership. Therefore, when respondent No. 1- a public trust is entitled to be admitted as member of society and when they have preferred an application as such on 12.06.2002 and paid requisite fee for such membership, the second part of the section 22(2) would attract which confirms that in such cases the society shall take decision on the application and shall communicate the decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. Thereafter, provision of section 24 of the Act would be relevant, wherein, sub-section (1) provides that no society shall, without sufficient cause, refuse admission to membership to any person duly qualified, under the provisions of this Act, the rules and bye-laws of such society. Whereas sub-section (2) of section 24 provides that, where the society does not communicate any decision to a person within a period of three months from the date of receipt by the society of his application for admission, such person shall be deemed to have become the member of such society on the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months. In case of refusal of admission, the provision of sub-section (3) of section 24 would apply which confirms that where a person refused admission as a member of a society, the decision together for the reasons thereby shall be communicated in writing to such person by the society within three months from the date of receipt application of such person. 17. Sub-section (4) of Section 24 provides that any society aggrieved by the admission of a member under sub section (2) i.e. deemed admission because of non communication resulted within three months, or any person aggrieved by the decision of the society refusing him its membership under sub section (3) may appeal to the Registrar. Therefore, when appeal is provided upon outcome/result of the provision of section 24(2), it becomes clear that it is enabling provision and it cannot be ignored and therefore, if society has not acted upon as per the provision of law, the person who has applied to be member shall be deemed to be a member of such society. 18. Therefore, when appeal is provided upon outcome/result of the provision of section 24(2), it becomes clear that it is enabling provision and it cannot be ignored and therefore, if society has not acted upon as per the provision of law, the person who has applied to be member shall be deemed to be a member of such society. 18. If we, peruse the order dated 19.10.2013, it becomes clear that the advocate for the petitioner has never raised any such issue before the District Registrar and therefore, District Registrar has categorically recorded that instead of raising of issue under section 22, the advocate for the society has emphasized more on the measurement of the plot and did not bother even for the revenue entry in property card, which was conferred before ten years and therefore relying upon the provision of section 22(1)(f), when trust is empowered to be a member, the District Registrar has confirm that trust should be admitted respondent No. 1 trust should be admitted as a member of the petitioner society. 19. When such order of the registrar was challenged before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) Co-operative Societies, such appellate authority has by its detailed and reasoned judgment dated 19.03.2014, in Revision No. 210/2013, (Annexure-B) while rejecting the revision by the petitioner confirmed the order dated 19.03.2013 by the District Registrar, whereby respondent No. 1 is permitted to be member of the petitioner Co-operative Housing Societies. Perusal of such impugned judgment dated 19.03.2014, makes it clear that practically the society has only reiterated their stand before the District Registrar. Thereby, there was nothing substantive in favour of the petitioner so as to allow the revision. On the contrary, now Additional Registrar (Appeals) Co-operatives Societies has re-produced relevant provisions of law in form of section 22 of the Act and rule 12 by holding that it is permissible for a public trust to be a member of the housing society. The judgment has discussed every issue raised by the petitioner in the petition and therefore, there is no reason to re-produce the details again and again in every next order, more particularly when it is very well described both in pleadings as well as in the impugned judgment. However, it becomes clear that, appellate authority has taken care of the issues raised before it. However, it becomes clear that, appellate authority has taken care of the issues raised before it. While deciding the dispute by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) in impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or arbitrariness in any manned whatsoever, so as to disturb such reasoned judgment. 20. However, being dissatisfied by the decision of Additional Registrar (Appeals) Co-operative Societies in Revision No. 2102/2013 dated 19.03.2014, which is referred and discussed herein above, the petitioner society has challenged such order before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Co-operative Societies by filing revision No. 206/2014. The Deputy Secretary (Appeals), however, by judgment and order dated 11.02.2014, rejected the Revision Application No. 2062/2014 by the present petitioner and thereby confirmed both the orders i.e. order dated 19.10.2013 by the District Registrar so also judgment and order dated 19.03.2014 by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) Co-operative Societies. The Deputy Secretary (Appeals) has also considered relevant issues which are raised and discussed above and therefore, it is not required to be re-produced again and again but it is made clear that the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) has also endorsed views taken by the Deputy Registrar and Additional Registrar (Appeals) in favour of respondent No. 1 and at present, petitioner could not point out any illegality, irregularity, arbitrariness, perverseness in any manner whatsoever in any of all such three concurrent findings against it. 21. In view of such fact, I do not see any reason to interfere with any such order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Then remains the only issue with reference to the presumption and assumption by the petitioner regarding nuisance if property in question is allowed to be used by the religious trust. 23. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon Trust Deed to show that the basic aim of the trust is to hold meeting and to spread religious faith in the society and therefore, it is contended that if trust will be allowed to acquire the property and then to allow them to hold religious gatherings and meetings in the property then it would result into nuisance to the other members of the society. I do not find any substances in such submission for the simple reason that the Trust-Deed itself does not restrict the trust for limited purpose of holding religious meeting but the trust has established several objections though main object is disclosed as preaching and practice of Sthanakakvasi Dasa Shrimali jainism faith. It is categorically stated that such objects disclosed at Para-3 of the Trust-deed the Ahimsa (nonviolence) being foundation of the Jainism, trust shall undertake all its direct or incidental activities within the tenets, script and spirit of Sthanakvasi Dasa Shrimali Jainism and more particularly following Ahimsa as understood in common parlance of Jainism. So far as activity of trust is concerned, para-4 specifically confirms that the trust will be settled with main object of constructing, building, managing and maintaining Upashray for preaching and practice of the faith of Sthanakvasi Dasa Shrimali Jainism and for housing Mahasatijis of Sthankvasi Dasa Shrimali Sect. Thereby, it is certain and clear that the activities of trust would generally not create any nuisance or disturbance in any manner whatsoever though such Upashray may be used to arrange or set-up for organized assemblies, programme, meetings or such activities to preach, promote and strengthen the faith of Sthanakvasi Dasa Shrimali Jainism. It is also evident from the record that in fact the plot is accessible to public directly from public road on one side and by other roads on three sides expect the remaining fourth side, which is having common wall with another plot owner. Therefore, practically even if there is some gathering in the plot or the building that may not create nuisance, since the other member of the society would have no interference of such gathering. It cannot be ignored that in any case, there would be gathering in the plot of other members in different occasions and festivals in their life like marriage, religious functions, death rituals, parties etc.. Therefore, it cannot be said that gathering of more people at particular place would create nuisance more particularly in absence of any specific facts, incidents or evidence to that effect. Therefore, it cannot be said that gathering of more people at particular place would create nuisance more particularly in absence of any specific facts, incidents or evidence to that effect. It is also evident from the record that in fact the original member of the society has never occupied or utilized the plot for long time and therefore, all construction become dilapidate in plight condition, when respondent No. 1 trust has purchased with an intention to re-build the house, and as per requirements, they applied for permission from the local authority. It is also evident that local authority have not objected or refused such construction and utility as required by the respondent No. 1 - trust. Thereby only the society which has objected the ownership and thereby occupancy and utility of the property which is purchased by respondent No. 1 by paying its price to its previous owner. Therefore, in fact it is society which is creating nuisance in the form of present litigation by not allowing the bonafide purchaser of the property to utilize the same, by filing different litigation one after another and raising issues which already decided by the competent court before a decade. 24. With reference to the rule of the society, wherein it is stated that the object of the housing society is to provide a residential facility to poor and middle class people, it is submitted that a trust cannot be consider as poor or middle class person so as to enable it to be a member of society. Suffice it is to say that submission and interpretation of rule by the petitioner is ill-found and un-warranted, in as much as the fact remains that law does not restrict membership to any person except such persons which are disclosed in the rule and that in that case, status of all other members would also been an issue to be considered that whether all of them are poor and middle class or not. Whereas the fact remains that respondent No. 1 is not the original member but subsequent bonafide purchaser on payment of market price to original member of the society and that too after more than four decades. Whereas the fact remains that respondent No. 1 is not the original member but subsequent bonafide purchaser on payment of market price to original member of the society and that too after more than four decades. Moreover, some such issue are first time raised in this petition only and it was never raised and hence when respondent No. 1 was not given an opportunity to prove otherwise than what is pleaded herein, such issue cannot be allowed to be raised in this petition which is at the fourth stage of total litigation. 25. Similarly, it cannot be said that use of Upashray would certainly result into nuisance and therefore, when local authority has also confirmed while issuing permission for construction that it should be used solely for residential purpose and that any other use would result into cancellation of permission; there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with in reasoned orders. 26. In addition to what is discussed herein above, the petitioner is also relying upon the decision in the case of Dhaneshbhai Bhikhubhai Patel and Another vs. Shantiniketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 2014 (2) GLR 1638. However, in such reported case the dispute or issue was with reference to illegal construction and therefore such judgment would not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. 27. No other issue raised by the petitioner except which are discussed and answered here. Therefore, I do not find any substance in any such issue so as to disturb the impugned orders, since even bye laws of the society does not restrict the use of the property except a general clause that it should not disturb the neighbour. However, it is a general proposition which is applicable to one and all property owner and therefore, only on apprehension that respondent No. 1 would create nuisance, they cannot be deprived of their legal held right to own and occupy the property in question. 28. In view of the facts and circumstances and discussion, I do not find any substance or reason in the petition so to entertain it by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when competent authority under the law with reference to the subject involved in the matter have dealt with the issue properly and appropriately and in detail. 29. Therefore, there is no substance in the petition, hence, petition stands dismissed. Notice stands discharged. Petition Dismissed.