JUDGMENT : 1. This group of petitions are filed by by the petitioner – Fatehpura Gam Ni Gopalak Sahakari Mandali Limited under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the prayer inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued for quashing and setting aside the order passed in Revision Application Nos. 117/2015, 119/2015, 120/2015, 116/2015 and 121/2015 in the respective Special Civil Applications. The said Revision Applications are preferred challenging the order passed by the appellate authority in favour of the Society by the Liquidator without authorization. 2. Heard learned Advocate Shri Dilip B. Rana for the Petitioner – Sahakari Mandali Limited, learned Assistant Government Pleaders Shri Venugopal Patel and Shri Bhargav Pandya appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and learned Advocate Shri V.C. Vaghela for Respondent No.4. 3. The background of the facts as narrated by learned Advocate Shri Dilip B. Rana briefly summarized are as follows. 4. Learned Advocate Shri Rana has referred to the order at Annexure-C placing the Society into liquidation and the order at Annexure-F is the final order of liquidation passed by the District Registrar. Learned Advocate Shri Rana submitted that against the interim order placing the Society into liquidation, Appeal was preferred contending that the final order of liquidation came to be passed which was subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No. 5067 of 2015 with Special Civil Application No. 5068 of 2015 to Special Civil Application No. 5078 of 2015. He submitted that the High Court (Coram: Ms. Sonia G. Gokani, J) vide order dated 24.3.2015 relegated to the alternate remedy, and therefore, the Appeal under Section 109 came to be preferred. He pointedly referred to the order passed in Appeal and submitted that the Appeal was decided in favour of the Society and in spite of that Respondent No.4 has challenged by way of Revision Application Nos. 117/2015, 119/2015, 120/2015, 116/2015 and 121/2015 contending that Respondent No.4 has no authority or jurisdiction to file such Revisions against the interest of the Society as he is functioning on behalf of the Society. He pointedly referred to the provisions of Section 110(a) of the Act which refer to the powers of the Liquidator. 117/2015, 119/2015, 120/2015, 116/2015 and 121/2015 contending that Respondent No.4 has no authority or jurisdiction to file such Revisions against the interest of the Society as he is functioning on behalf of the Society. He pointedly referred to the provisions of Section 110(a) of the Act which refer to the powers of the Liquidator. Learned Advocate Shri Rana also referred to Section 110(a) and submitted that it empowers to institute and defend the suit and/or other legal proceedings on behalf of the Society. He therefore submitted that he could not have preferred Revision Applications challenging the order passed by the appellate authority in favour of the Society. He submitted that the Society would authorize such representative in his capacity as Liquidator acting on behalf of the Society and he would be working as a Trustee for the Society and therefore cannot act against the interest of the Society. 5. Learned Advocate Shri V.C. Vaghela for Respondent No.4 however referred to the papers and submitted that the order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction as the Liquidator has the power to take the necessary steps. He submitted that Section 107 of the Act refer to the Liquidation and the Appeal against the order of winding up could be filed by the Society or the member. He has therefore tried to submit that the order passed in the Revision Applications may not be disturbed and/or alternatively, it may be remanded back. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for Respondent No.1-3 supported the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri V.C. Vaghela for Respondent No.4 contending that the order passed in Revision Applications cannot be said to have been without authority or jurisdiction. He submitted that the powers are with the Society or the members and that too under Section 109 of the Act. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleaders submitted that the present petitions may not be entertained. 7. In view of the rival submissions and having regard to the background of the facts, the moot question which is required to be considered is whether the order passed in Revision Applications can be said to be without jurisdiction. 8. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleaders submitted that the present petitions may not be entertained. 7. In view of the rival submissions and having regard to the background of the facts, the moot question which is required to be considered is whether the order passed in Revision Applications can be said to be without jurisdiction. 8. As could be seen from the papers, the Appeal is preferred under Section 109 of the Act and that the Applicant is the Chairman and therefore the order passed in the Appeal in favour of the Society at the instance of the members of the Society having authorized the Chairman to file such Appeal cannot be questioned. A Resolution is also placed on record. Therefore, when the Appeal is preferred by the Chairman on the basis of the Resolution of the Society and when the Appeals are decided in favour of the Society, there is no justification for the Liquidator to challenge such an order by way of Revision Applications. The provision of Section 110 of the Act referred to Power of Liquidator, particularly Section 110(a) of the Act provide: “to institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings, civil or criminal, on behalf of the society, in the name of his office.” Thus, it gives power to the Liquidator to institute and defend the suit and/or other legal proceedings on behalf of the Society in the name of his office. In other words as rightly submitted, he is a custodian or the Trustee appointed to take care of the interest of the Society. It is in that context the provisions of Section 110 of the Act empowers the Liquidator to initiate the proceedings to protect the interest of the Society. As stated above, when the Appeal is preferred by the Chairman with necessary Resolution of the Society and it has been decided in favour of the Society, the Liquidator who has to work as a Trustee in a fiduciary relationship could not have acted contrary to the interest of the Society by challenging any such order by way of Revision Applications. In fact he is appointed to take care of the interest of the Society for which he is empowered to initiate and defend the legal proceedings. In fact he is appointed to take care of the interest of the Society for which he is empowered to initiate and defend the legal proceedings. However, the legislature has clearly provided that he can institute or defend such suit or legal proceedings on behalf of the Society, meaning thereby, to take care of interest of the Society and not against the interest of the Society. Therefore, as rightly submitted, a bare perusal of the statutory provisions of the Act particularly Section 110 read with Section 109 and 135 of the Act, it leaves no doubt that the impugned action of Respondent No.4 of filing the Revision Applications cannot be said to be within his power and jurisdiction, and therefore, he could not have preferred Revision Applications. Therefore, the notices issued by Respondent No.1 in such Revision Applications cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and set aside. The prayer in terms of paragraph 6(A) is granted. The order passed by the appellate authority could not have been challenged by Respondent No.4 in the Revision. Therefore, Revision Application Nos. 117/2015, 119/2015, 120/2015, 116/2015 and 121/2015 in the respective Special Civil Applications at the instance of Respondent No.4 is not maintainable and therefore such proceedings are quashed and set aside. 9. The present Special Civil Applications are allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.