ORDER : Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipen Desai for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.Ravi Pahwa for the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Ishan Joshi for the respondent No.4. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 26th July, 2021 passed by the respondent No.3 – Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.34 of 2021 as well as the order dated 23rd June, 2021, passed by the respondent No.2 – Board of Nominees, Mehsana in Lavad Suit No.46 of 2021. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 are the members of the managing committee of the petitioner No.1 – Society, which is registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”). 3.1 According to the petitioners, as the term of the earlier committee of the petitioner – Society came to an end, a new committee of 8 members of the managing committee i.e. petitioner Nos.2 to 9 was constituted unanimously and approved in the general body of the petitioner – Society. 3.2 However, as the selection of the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 was not through election as per the bye-laws of the petitioner No.1 – Society, the respondent No.1 preferred a Lavad Suit No.46 of 2021 before the respondent No.2 – Board of Nominees alongwith an application for interim injunction. 3.3 It was prayed in the Lavad Suit that in the meeting held on 15th July, 2020 the managing committee of the petitioner No.1 – Society be prevented from functioning. It was also prayed that the resolution No.3 dated 15th July, 2020, by which the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 were elected as the members of the managing committee, be also declared as null and void. 3.4 The respondent No.2 – Board of Nominees, after considering the reply filed by the petitioners, by order dated 23rd June, 2021 partly granted the interim injunction application and restrained the members petitioner Nos.2 to 9 to function till the final disposal of the suit. 3.5 The petitioners therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 23rd June, 2021, preferred the Revision application no.34 of 2021 before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under Section 150(9) of the Act of 1961. 3.5 The petitioners therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 23rd June, 2021, preferred the Revision application no.34 of 2021 before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under Section 150(9) of the Act of 1961. However, the Tribunal by impugned order dated 26th July, 2021, rejected the revision application and therefore, the petitioners have filed this petition. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Ravi Pahwa appeared for the respondent No.1 on caveat and learned AGP Mr.Joshi appeared for the newly joint respondent No.4 – District Registrar on advanced copy. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Dipen Desai submitted that the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 were unanimously selected by the members of the petitioner No.1 – Society by applying TODA wise system. It was submitted that the petitioner No.1 – Society is situated in village Kamalpur, wherein, instead of electing the members of the managing committee as per the bye-laws it was decided by the erstwhile members of the managing committee with the consent of the village people to appoint the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 as members of the managing committee unanimously and accordingly, the resolution No.3 dated 15th July, 2020 was passed in the managing committee of the petitioner No.1 – Society. 5.1 It was submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to hold the election as per the terms of the bye-laws, and if required, the District Registrar – respondent No.4 may be directed to hold such elections in accordance with the bye-laws, so as to see that the grievances raised by the respondent No.1 are redressed before the Board of Nominees. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Pahwa for the respondent No.1, submitted that the petitioners cannot hold the office as members of the managing committee in view of the provisions of Section 74(1A)(ii) of the Act of 1961 because only the elected members are entitled to be the office bearers of the managing committee. Reliance was also placed on Section 74(1C)(ii) of the Act of 1961, which provides that the elected members of the managing committee and its office bearers shall cease to hold the office on the date of expiry of their term. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 are admittedly not elected members of the petitioner No.1 – Society and as such they cannot continue to function as the office bearers of the petitioner No.1 – Society. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 are admittedly not elected members of the petitioner No.1 – Society and as such they cannot continue to function as the office bearers of the petitioner No.1 – Society. 6.1 In support of his submissions, reliance was placed upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 : “5. I say that even otherwise, as per Sec.74(1B)(i) of the Act, there shall be reserved one seat for the scheduled caste/ scheduled tribe and two seats for women in the managing committee of every society. For the ready reference of this Hon’ble Court, I beg to reproduce Sec. 74(1B)(i1) of the Act herein below: “Sec. 74(1B)(i) there shall be reserved one seat for the scheduled caste/ scheduled tribe and two seats for women in the managing committee of every society consisting of individuals as members and having members from such class’ or category of persons.” In the present case, the purported Managing Committee does not consist women members or members of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes in accordance with Sec.74(1B)(i) of the Act. 6. I say that as per Sec.74D of the Act, where in respect of any society, a new committee of management for any reason is not elected before the expiry of the term of members of the committee of management of such society, the Registrar shall by an order, in writing, appoint a person or a committee of persons to be the custodian of the society for a period of one year or until a new committee of Management is elected. For the ready reference of this Hon’ble Court, I beg to reproduce Sec.74D of the Act herein below:- “Section 74D : Appointment of Custodian in certain circumstances (1) Where in respect of any society including a society existing immediately before the commencement of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Guj. For the ready reference of this Hon’ble Court, I beg to reproduce Sec.74D of the Act herein below:- “Section 74D : Appointment of Custodian in certain circumstances (1) Where in respect of any society including a society existing immediately before the commencement of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Guj. 12 of 2015), a new committee of management is, for any reason whatsoever, not elected before the expiry of the term of office of members of a committee of management of such society or having been elected not functioning within a period of three months (not being a committee referred to in Sec. 80-A), except for the reason of order of the competent court due to which such election cold not be held or the managing committee could not start functioning, the registrar shall by an order in writing, appoint a person or a committee of persons to be the Custodian of the society for a period of one year or until a new committee of management is elected or, as the case ray be, starts functioning. (2) The Custodian shall arrange to hold election of such society within a period of one year and the Committee shall be constituted before the expiration of that period. (3) The Custodian so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have powers to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee and take all such actions as may be required in the interest of the society. (4) All acts done or purported to be done by the Custodian during the period when the affairs of the society are carried on by such Custodian, shall be binding on the new committee Of management.” I say that in the present case, admittedly the term of old management committee of petitioner society has expired and the new committee of Management is not elected so far and therefore, in view of above provision, the Registrar is empowered to appoint a custodian to hold elections of the petitioner society. 7. I say that even otherwise, the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal in the impugned order has given liberty to the present petitioners to approach the Registrar for appropriate orders. The impugned order therefore is just, reasonable and in accordance with law. 7. I say that even otherwise, the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal in the impugned order has given liberty to the present petitioners to approach the Registrar for appropriate orders. The impugned order therefore is just, reasonable and in accordance with law. No prejudice is caused to the petitioners by the impugned order passed by the Ld. Tribunal. The present petition therefore also is liable to be dismissed. 8. I say that there are serious allegations of corruption against the erstwhile management committee and investigation qua the same is going on by the District Registrar. Therefore, it is the humble submission of respondent no.1 that the present managing committee may not be permitted to continue and a custodian be appointed so as to arrange election of new managing committee of petitioner society. 9. I say that this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application No.10984 of 2017 has observed as under:- “12. .. .... .... As stated earlier, Section 74 of the Societies Act mandates that only elected members shall be entitled to be the members of the Managing Committee. Hence, the constitution of the Managing Committee consisting of 21 members elected by the petitioner society without election was ex-facie not in consonance of Section 74 of the Societies Act. The Court, therefore, does not ind any illegality or infirmity in the impugned decision of the authorized officer.” I say and submit that in the present case also, the petitioner nos. 2 to 9 are not elected as members of Managing Committee of petitioner society after holding elections in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I say that on the contrary, the petitioner nos. 2 to 9 are selected as members Managing Committee of petitioner society and thus, the constitution of present Managing Committee is ex-facie illegal. I beg to annex a copy of the order dated 11.7.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 10984 of 2017 at Annexure-R1.” 6.2 Relying upon the aforesaid averments, it was submitted that the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 cannot continue and only the Registrar is required to appoint a custodian as per the provisions of Section 74D of the Act of 1961. 6.3 It was therefore, submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent No.1 that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for and both the authorities have concurrently held that the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 cannot continue to function as office bearers of the managing committee of the petitioner No.1 – Society. 6.4 Learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has also relied upon the application made by one Amrutbhai Chhaganbhai Patel making allegations against the members of the managing committee of the petitioner No.1 – Society and submitted that in view of such complaint the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 cannot continue as members of the managing committee of the petitioner No.1 – Society. 7. Learned AGP Mr.Joshi appearing for the respondent No.4, under instructions, submitted that he has received instructions that if the respondent No.4 is directed to conduct the elections of the managing committee of the petitioner No.1 – Society, the same shall be conducted within a period of four weeks from today. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 were appointed as members of the managing committee of the petitioner No.1 – Society contrary to the bye-laws of the petitioner No.1 – Society on which they were selected by the village people, cannot be considered to ratify such appointment. The petitioners are discharging their functions as members of the managing committee since July, 2020. Moreover, the learned advocate for the petitioners has shown willingness to hold elections as per the bye-laws under the supervision of the District Registrar and has also shown willingness to allow respondent No.1 as part of the managing committee till such elections are held. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, interest of justice would be met if the District Registrar is directed to hold the elections of the managing committee of the petitioner No.1 – Society within a period of eight weeks from today, and till that point of time, the petitioner Nos.2 to 9 alongwith the respondent No.1 shall continue as a custodian of the petitioner No.1 – Society, so as to carry out day-to-day affairs and they shall not take any policy decisions till the elected body takes over the management of the managing committee. 10. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.