ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Ravindra Shah for the petitioner and Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 through Video Conferencing. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayers of the petitioner read as under: “(A) to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent No.3 - State to appoint three members in the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal; (B) to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the impugned action of respondent nos.1 and 2 in making construction of Ground + Seven Floors flat type construction in sub plot 32/A of the petitioner society pursuant to the commencement letter and plan at Annexure F Colly to the petition and to permanently restrain them from doing so; (C) pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, to restrain the respondent no.1 and 2, their agents, assigns, servants, whosoever etc from carrying on erection or execution of construction of whatsoever nature in sub plot 32/A of the petitioner society till the cross objection of the petitioner society in Appeal No.73/2019 is finally heard and adjudicated on merits by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal after constitution of its bench upon appointment of members by the respondent no.3 - State. ” 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent nos.1 and 2 had purchased the plot and were carrying on construction thereon contrary to the byelaws of the society, inasmuch as construction of apartment building and/or construction for commercial use was not permitted as per the byelaws. 4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the Society approached the Board of Nominees by filing a Lavad Suit No.217/2017 on 27.6.2017. In the Lavad Suit, the prayers made by the petitioner was to the effect that the construction carried out on plot no.32/A was without sanction as per the byelaws and no such construction be carried out. It appears that the Lavad Suit was decided on 30.8.2019. 5. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that essentially the findings of the Lavad Court are in favour of the plaintiff - petitioner. However, in the operative portion, the suit was partly allowed. It appears that the Lavad Suit was decided on 30.8.2019. 5. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that essentially the findings of the Lavad Court are in favour of the plaintiff - petitioner. However, in the operative portion, the suit was partly allowed. Against the order of the Lavad Court partly allowing the suit, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have preferred an appeal No.73/2019 before the Gujarat Cooperative Tribunal. 6. The petition was placed before this Court with an additional prayer of 7(A) as referred hereinabove to appoint three members of the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal. Jurisdiction under Article 226 was invoked challenging the inaction of the tribunal in registering the cross objections filed by the petitioner, as according to Mr. Shah operative portion of the order was unclear of the Nominee's Court which leads to misinterpretation at the hands of the respondents. Inasmuch as, though the undertaking was given before the LPA Bench, the respondent continued to flout that undertaking and continued the construction contrary to the undertaking so given. Mr. Shah would submit that though the findings are in favour of the Board of Nominees and it was held that the plans for carrying out construction was not binding to the society on an appeal filed by the respondent before the tribunal and the action of carrying out construction prompted the petitioner to file the present petition. 7. Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that in a petition being SCA No.21824/2019, identical reliefs have been prayed for wherein the Court on 9.12.2019 issued the notice and did not grant any interim relief. Prayers in the present petition are identical and are overlapping, therefore, the present petition could not have been filed only because of the reliefs of 7(A) and the interim relief granted in the present petition 7(C) was essentially a relief which was not granted in SCA No.21824/2019. *Mr. Shah also invited the attention of the Court to the order of the Division Bench in LPA No.1851/2017 and the order dated 9.11.2017 and submitted that the undertaking given was restrained the respondent to construct during the tenure of the suit before the Board of Nominees. 8. *Mr. Shah also invited the attention of the Court to the order of the Division Bench in LPA No.1851/2017 and the order dated 9.11.2017 and submitted that the undertaking given was restrained the respondent to construct during the tenure of the suit before the Board of Nominees. 8. This Court has perused the prayer in SCA No.21824/2019 which reads as under: “6(A) to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the impugned action of respondent nos.3 to 5 and grant of commencement letter dated 13.4.2017 to be ultra vires, illegal and without authority of law and direct the respondents to cancel/revoke/recall the said plan and commencement letter at Annexture A Colly to the petition; (B) to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the respondent authorities in accepting or approving any plan of flat type or non residential construction or in the nature of having superstructure construction of more than ground plus two floors from the respondent nos.3 to 5 or from any other person and granting construction permission for any subplot situated within the petitioner society; (C) to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents authorities agents, assigns, servants, whosoever etc to remove the construction of existing superstructure erected by the respondent nos.3 to 5 on sub plot 32/A in the petitioner society and to remove the respondent nos.3 to 5 to from the premises of sub plot no.32/A in the petitioner society” 9. SCA No.21824/2019 though essentially was filed against the sanction of plan, it is evident that the reliefs prayed for in the present petition have a bearing and are identical to the reliefs prayed for in SCA No.21824/2019, inasmuch as, prayer 7(B) in the present petition also for a writ of mandamus of setting aside the impugned action of respondent nos.1 and 2 in making construction of the ground + 7 floors. 10. Interim Relief in terms of 7(C) was then granted by this Court exparte on the ground that the tribunal was not available and the cross objections were not being lodged and heard. It is now a fact that the bench of the Tribunal is validly constituted. 11. 10. Interim Relief in terms of 7(C) was then granted by this Court exparte on the ground that the tribunal was not available and the cross objections were not being lodged and heard. It is now a fact that the bench of the Tribunal is validly constituted. 11. On the action of the respondent in beginning construction after filing of the appeal, when the operative portion of the order of the Board of Nominees is read, together with the order in the LPA and the undertaking placed on record that was filed before LPA Bench, the undertaking reads to state that the respondent submitted that since during the hearing of the LPA, the respondent - defendant gave an undertaking that he may not construct beyond 1 + 2 floors as per the approved plan produced before this Court. The undertaking further stated that in view of that circumstances, the respondents undertook that they would put up construction of 1 + 2 floors as per the approved plan produced before this Court and would not make construction beyond 1 + 2 floors till the time of two months within which period the suit filed by the plaintiff be finally decided. 12. When this is read in context of the operative portion of the order of the Board of Nominees, the operative portion of the order, prima facie seems to be in consonance with the undertaking given by the respondent nos.1 and 2. The undertaking bind respondent nos.1 and 2 only during the tenure of the pendency of the proceedings before the Board of Nominees. If there was misinterpretation of the order, the appeal of the respondent and cross objections filed by the petitioner are at large before the Tribunal. As far as main relief which is similar and identical to relief in SCA No.21824/2019 is concerned, can be taken care of in that petition. Prayer 6(D) of that petition when read, the Court only issued notice and notice as to interim relief which is a relief. 13. Prima facie, therefore, if the construction progresses during the pendency of appeal, and if it was in violation of the orders passed and the undertaking given by the respondents before the Letters Patent bench of this Court, that appears to be not so when the operative portion of the Board of Nominees is read. 13. Prima facie, therefore, if the construction progresses during the pendency of appeal, and if it was in violation of the orders passed and the undertaking given by the respondents before the Letters Patent bench of this Court, that appears to be not so when the operative portion of the Board of Nominees is read. Aggrieved by the so called misinterpretation of the operative portion of the Nominees' Court, the petitioner has lodged cross objections in the appeal of the respondents. 14. Prima facie, when as far as the nature of construction and the permission is a subject matter of SCA No.21824/2019 that can be decided by the appropriate Court. For the time being, the only relief that can be granted is now that the tribunal is validly constituted the tribunal shall decide the appeal No.73/2019 filed before it together with the cross objections filed by the petitioner preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Interim Relief granted earlier shall stand vacated on a condition that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall file an appropriate undertaking before the tribunal that in the event they do not succeed in the appeal filed before the tribunal, the construction that they undertake henceforth shall be demolished. Parties will cooperate with the hearing. 15. Mr. Shah states that the protection has been continued since 19.12.2019 be continued for a period of four weeks. The interim relief granted earlier to continue upto 12.2.2021. 16. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. In view of disposal of the main matter, connected civil application will not survive.