ORDER : 1. Heard, learned Advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela appearing for the petitioner and the learned Advocate Mr. Pankaj S. Chaudhary for Respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Asmita Patel for Respondent No.1. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “7. … A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition; B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 21.09.2020 and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to include the name of the petitioner in final voters list and allow the petitioner to take part in the election of the District Union to be held on 19.10.2020. C. ...” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Primary Level Cooperative Milk Producing Society which is registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter, ‘Act of 1961’) is represented by its Chairman, Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel. 3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 3(A) of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 (hereinafter ‘Rules of 1982’), names of the representatives of the society were called by the District Union and accordingly the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel as the Chairman was sent and was included in the Preliminary Voters’ List, as per Resolution dated 30th June, 2020. 3.2 Respondent No.1 was appointed as Election Officer vide order dated 25th August, 2020 and Respondent No.1 published the notification of Preliminary Voters’ list on 26th August, 2020 and thereby, objections were invited against the inclusion or exclusion of any name. 3.3 Respondent No.2 filed objections against the inclusion of name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel which was sent by the Petitioner-Society for the election of the District Union as represtative of the Petitioner-Society. 3.4 The petitioner appeared before Respondent No.1 and filed reply contending inter alia that in the Annual General Meeting of the Petitioner-Society held on 17th June, 2020 it was decided to remove two Directors who had abstained from attending three consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner-Society, including Respondent No.2- Arjanbhai Khetabhai Patel. 3.4 The petitioner appeared before Respondent No.1 and filed reply contending inter alia that in the Annual General Meeting of the Petitioner-Society held on 17th June, 2020 it was decided to remove two Directors who had abstained from attending three consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner-Society, including Respondent No.2- Arjanbhai Khetabhai Patel. It was also pointed out that none of them challenged Resolution No.4 dated 17th June, 2020 before the Board of Nominee under Section 96 of the Act of 1961. It was therefore pointed out that Respondent No.1 had not power or authority to decide the validity of the resolution passed by the Petitioner-Society. 3.5 Respondent No.1 declared the election programme of the District Union by notification dated 18th September, 2020. Then, by order dated 21st September, 2020 Respondent No.1 ordered to delete the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel and instead included the name of Respondent No.2 – Arjanbhai Khetabhai Patel in the Final Voters’ List. 3.6 The Petitioner-Society has therefore approached this Court by way of this petition seeking the reliefs as referred to herein above. 4. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela appearing for the Petitioner-Society submitted that in the election of the District Union, the candidate has been elected uncontested and therefore neither Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel nor Respondent No.2 had any occasion to vote in the election and as such this petition has become infructuos. However, it was submitted that by the impugned order as the name of Respondent No.2 is ordered to be included in the Final Voters’ List by Respondent No.1 on the ground that members of the original Executive Committee without following any procedure or giving an opportunity of hearing admitted new member as the representative of the Petitioner-Society and on considering the affidavits filed by the members of the Petitioner-Society the majority members were with Respondent No.2, the name of Respondent No.2 was added by substituting the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel by the impugned order and therefore such observations would come in the way of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel if he wishes to file a Lavad Suit before the Board of Nominee. 5. On the other hand learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhary has relied on the following averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed for and on behalf of Respondent No.2; “3. 5. On the other hand learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhary has relied on the following averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed for and on behalf of Respondent No.2; “3. I submit that if we go through the nomenclature of the petition, it appears that, the Hirapura Dudh Udpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited has filed this petition through its Chairman shri Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as “the said society’). In this respect I submits that, Shri Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel was not at all the Chairman of the said society even in the last ten years and filing the petition as a Chairman of the society is not permissible at law and therefore, at the threshold, the petition requires to be dismissed as it being not maintainable, both in law as well as on facts, as would be seen from what is stated hereinafter. 4. With respect to para_1 to 2.7 of the petition, I state that, the facts of para 1 deals with what does the petitioner challenge and about the facts of the petitioner society and its registration under the Cooperative Act, and the Member of the District Union. Thus, I do not make any comment thereon. I also state that, the facts of the para 2.1 deals with the business of the petitioner society. It is also denied that, when the District Union called the name of the representatives of its Societies, the petitioner forwarded the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel and was included in the preliminary voters list. In this respect, I state that, after the name of respondent no.2 was sent as the representative of the said society to the District Union, the Officer’s of the District Union threatened the secretary of the said society and behind the back, as a representative of the said society, the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel was sent and included in the preliminary voter list. I submit that, the meeting of the Managing Committee of the said society was held on 30% June, 2020 and wherein unanimously the name of respondent no.2 was sent as a representative of the said society. I submit that, the meeting of the Managing Committee of the said society was held on 30% June, 2020 and wherein unanimously the name of respondent no.2 was sent as a representative of the said society. Pursuant thereto, the said society had also communicated the said facts to the District Union with a copy of Resolution passed by the said society on its letter pad, the members of the Managing Body who were present at the time of passing the resolution and the necessary details of the said society on its letter pad along with Registered A.D. Postal Slips. The copies of the said documents along with copy of said resolution are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE:R-1 collectively to this affidavit in reply. It is submitted that, the respondent No.1 published the notification dated 26.8.2020 publishing the preliminary voter list under Rule 4 and 5 of the Rules and invited objections against the inclusion or exclusion of any name on or before 224 September, 2020. So looking to the preliminary voter list, though the petitioner society did not pass any resolution as to its representative of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel and still his name being reflected, the respondent No.2 along with other six members of the committee filed the objection pointing out the correct facts that, how as the representative of said society, the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel was included. The copies of the objections along with the affidavits of the members of the Managing Committee are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE:R-2 collectively to this affidavit in reply. Thus, considering the objection the respondent no.1 was pleased to allow the objection and directed to remove the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel as_ the representative of the said society and to add as the representative of the said society the name of Patel Arjanbhai Khetabhai_ i.e. respondent No.2. It is also submitted that, pursuant to the Notice by the respondent no.1, the petitioner had also filed a reply to the objection, which is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE:R-3 to this affidavit in reply. It is also submitted that, pursuant to the Notice by the respondent no.1, the petitioner had also filed a reply to the objection, which is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE:R-3 to this affidavit in reply. It is also denied that, Annual General Meeting of the petitioner society was held on 17% June, 2020 and it was decided to remove two Directors, who had abstained from three consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee of the Society namely Arjanbhai Khetabhai Patel and Laxmanbhai Ramjibhai Chaudhari and who were present in the meeting and both had signed the proceedings of the meeting. It is also submitted that, no any resolution of the General Body of the said society has been passed and it being forged one by the Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel and others, so question of challenging the same under section 96 of the Act before the Board of Nominee does not arrived at all. It is also submitted that, the question as to whether the resolution as alleged by the petitioner was passed or not or any new members in the Managing Committee were included or excluded are the substantial questions of facts, which cannot be decided in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. With respect to para 3 to 6 of the petition, it is denied that, Annual General Meeting of the said society was held on 17.6.2020 and wherein, the respondent NO.2 was also present and in the meeting and it was decided to have eleven members of the committee and it was also decided that Shri Arjanbhai Patel i.e. respondent No.2 as well as Laxmanbhai Ramjibhai Chaudhary who had abstained in three consecutive meetings were resolved to be removed and in that place two other members namely Nathabhai Narshangbhai Chaudhary and Narmadaben Sadu were resolved to be included in the Managing Committee. It is also denied that, the following members were elected as member of the Managing Committee - (1) Patel Shankarbhai Khemabhai, (2) Chaudhary Nathiben Ramabhai, (3) Sadhu Narmadaben Jankidas, (4) Chaudhary Sankuben Ajabhai, (5) Chaudhary Kuberbhai Okhabhai, (6) Chaudhary Jagmalbhai Hemrajbhai , (7) Chaudhary Ratanben Vajabhai, (8) Chaudhary Viraben Khemabhai, (9) Joshi Manjulaben Atmaram, (10) Chaudhary Nathabhai Narsangbhai, (11) Chaudhary Jagdishbhai Haribhai. In this respect, I submit that as such no any meeting of the General Body was held on 17% June, 2020 but at the instance of the District Union and on threats by its officer to the Secretary of the petitioner society, with a view to create a wrong majority in the Managing Body of the said society, false record was created by Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel and others, with a view to support the panel of the running Chairman of the District Union. It is also denied that, the respondent No.2 is not a member of the Managing committee and therefore, he cannot represent the society. In this respect, it is submitted that, the respondent no.2 was the Chairman of the Society and in accordance with the provisions of law, his name was forwarded to the District Union as a representative of the said society. So, in the preliminary voter list, looking to the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel as a representative of the Said society, the respondent no.2 along with other six members filed their objection along with affidavit before the respondent no.1 i.e. the Election Officer to point out the correct facts and considering the same, the respondent No.1 has rightly allowed their objection and removed the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel as a representative of the said society. It is also denied that, the respondent no.1 has decided the validity of the resolution of the society which the respondent no.1 has no power to dwelve into the internal affairs of the society. It is also denied that, the respondent no.2 has no authority to pass such order and verify the genuineness of the resolution and therefore, the order dated 21 September, 2002 is illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside. It is also denied that, the petitioner does not have any other alternative efficacious remedy, but to approach the Honourable High Court by way of this petition.” 5.1 Relying upon the aforesaid averments it was submitted that Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel could not have filed this petition in the name of the Cooperative Society as he is not the Chairman of the Petitioner-Society in the last ten years and therefore representing himself as the chairman of the Petitioner-Society is a misrepresentation and this petition deserves to be dismissed as not being maintainable. 5.2 It was also submitted that who has created the false documents is a matter of evidence and that can only be considered by the Board of Nominee if a Lavad Suit is filed by an aggrieved party. It was therefore submitted that the observations made by Respondent No.1 cannot be considered as final in any manner. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record as well as the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.2, it appears that Shankarbhai Khemabhai patel could not have filed this petition in his capacity as the Chairman of the Petitioner-Society in absence of any resolution to file such a petition before this Court. Moreover the inclusion of the name of Respondent No.2 in the Voters’ List by the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 has not adversely affected Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel in any manner in view of the fact that the candidate of the District Union has been elected uncontested. 6.1 Thus this petition has become infructuos however, at the instance of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and more particularly Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel who has represented himself as the Chairman of the Petitioner-Society is making the grievance that the observation made by Respondent No.1 would come in his way and hence this petition is decided on merits. 6.2 At this juncture learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela has placed on record the Resolution No. 29 passed by the Petitioner-Society in its meeting held on 22nd September, 2020, permitting Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel as the Chairman and the Secretary to file this petition. 6.3 It appears that there are rival claims by Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel and Respondent No.2 to be the representative of the Petitioner-Society to vote in the election of the District Union which was to be held. Respondent No.1 has taken into consideration the affidavits filed by the Members of the Executive Committee of the Petitioner-Society to the effect of deleting the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel as the representative of the Petitioner-Society and including the name of Respondent No.2 in the Voters’ List. Respondent No.1 has taken into consideration the affidavits filed by the Members of the Executive Committee of the Petitioner-Society to the effect of deleting the name of Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel as the representative of the Petitioner-Society and including the name of Respondent No.2 in the Voters’ List. 6.4 As stated above, as there are rival claims made by Shankarbhai Khemabhai Patel who is representing the petitioner-Society before this Court as well as Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the affidavits filed by the Members of the Executive Committee of the Petitioner-Society in favour of Respondent No.2 and annexed along with the affidavit-in-reply. 6.5 In view of the above disputed questions of facts which are raised in this petition, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1. The parties may raise their claim before the appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1961. 7. This petition therefore fails and is dismissed with the costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) to be deposited with the Gujarat High Court Advocates Law Library. Notice is discharged