JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani assisted by learned advocate Mr.Viral K. Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. Facts in all these petitions are similar and they have therefore, been heard analogously and would be disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner as well as the respondents are common in all these petitions. 4. For the sake of convenience, facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No.3762/2022. 5. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 7.7/8.2020 passed by the Registrar rejecting the application and refusing to grant permission under Section 71 of the Act as also the order dated 20.1.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting Revision Application No.40 of 2020 and further be pleased to declare that there is no need to get the permission under Section 71 of the Act r/w Rule 29 of the Rules in light of the document produced at Annexure-V to the petition. Alternatively : (B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 7.7/8.2020 passed by the Registrar as also the order dated 20.1.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 and remand the matter back to the Registrar, so as to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, so that the Registrar may consider the document at Annexure-V and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (C) During the pendency hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 7.7/8.2020 passed by the Registrar rejecting the application and refusing to grant permission under Section 71 of the Act as also the order dated 20.1.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting the Revision Application No.40 of 2020. (D) Any other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper looking to the facts of this case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner, interest of justice.” 6. Brief facts of the case are as under: 6.1) The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961(For short, “the Act”) and the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules, 1965 (For short “the Rules”) having area of operation as Bhavnagar District. The petitioner society has about 680 member societies as the petitioner is a federal society under the Act. The petitioner society runs the dairy, namely, Sarvottam Dairy and has been providing many services including the milk collecting center, chilling center, center for maintaining the milk and other services. 6.2) The petitioner sought permission under section 71 of the Act from the respondent to construct two storied chilling center at Sar on 23.03.2016 along with resolution dated 26.02.2016. 6.3) On 6.04.2016 the District Registrar directed the petitioner to apply in a particular format which was applied on 29.04.2016. On 8.8.2016 the petitioner had submitted all the enclosures, relevant documents and further details and particulars to the District Registrar. Though all the details and particulars were produced, respondent no.4-District Registrar vide communication dated 6.10.2016 directed the petitioner to provide further details. 6.4) In the meanwhile, due to huge inflow of milk from the milk producers’ society and shortage of space at chilling centre, in anticipation of getting the approval, the petitioner started the project of constructing the chilling center. On 8.5.2019, again the entire file with all the documents related to the project was submitted to the office of the District Registrar. The petitioner had also taken requisite permissions from the different authorities. 6.5) On 23.05.2019, the petitioner requested the District Registrar to give the approval to the project and simultaneously on 22.5.2019 the District Registrar asked for further details from the petitioner. On 14.06.2019 the petitioner replied and submitted check list along with the letter complying and fulfilling all the particulars as asked for. On 16.8.2019 a letter was issued by the District Registrar to provide further details which was supplied by the petitioner vide letter dated 26.08.2019. Again on 5.9.2019, the District Registrar demanded further particulars which have been replied by the petitioner on 6.9.2019. On 16.8.2019 a letter was issued by the District Registrar to provide further details which was supplied by the petitioner vide letter dated 26.08.2019. Again on 5.9.2019, the District Registrar demanded further particulars which have been replied by the petitioner on 6.9.2019. 6.6) On 27.9.2019 respondent no.3 Joint Registrar had informed the petitioner that there will be scrutiny of the file of the concerned project for which the petitioner was called on 11.10.2019. On 20.11.2019, the proposal of the petitioner had been returned and the petitioner was asked to submit the same again by supplying all the details and particulars. Thereafter again entire file in respect of the project was prepared and sent for approval on 31.2.2020. Again on 4.8.2020, the petitioner requested the office of the District Registrar to grant the approval. 6.7) It is the case of the petitioner that the District Registrar without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing vide order dated 7.7/8.2020 rejected the application and refused to grant permission under section 71 of the Act. 6.8) Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.40 of 2020 before respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 rejected the revision application vide order dated 20.1.2022. 6.9) Thereafter it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that on the basis of letter issued by the Joint Registrar (Commerce) dated 14.10.1999; there is no need to ask for permission under section 71 of the Act from the Registrar for expansion of business and construction. All the three projects of the petitioner came to an end and the profit of the petitioner increased and its members earned dividend @ 15%. 7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of hearing is granted by the Registrar while passing the impugned order denying the permission under section 71 of the Act resulting into violation of the principles of natural justice. 7.1) It was submitted that the project of the petitioner was a huge project having stake of Crores of rupees and after following due procedure of law by publishing the public advertisement, inviting tenders and getting approval from various authorities and village Panchayat and for the benefit of the members of the societies, construction was raised and the project was completed successfully. 7.2) It was submitted that under the circumstances denial of permission only on the ground that after completion of the project, an application was made under section 71 of the Act is unjust and unreasonable and the same ought to have been granted. 7.3) It was submitted that the respondent authorities were demanding various details and particulars from the petitioners which were supplied from time to time and all the authorities were well aware that the project was over and despite that details were called for and at no point of time any of the authorities have informed to the petitioner that permission under section 71 of the Act would not be granted only on account of completion of project and not getting prior permission by the petitioner. 7.4) It was submitted that the findings arrived at by the respondent authorities is perverse inasmuch as the implementation of project to the tune of more than Rs. 50 Crore is not in dispute and therefore, only on the ground that the application was made at a later point of time, permission could not have been denied to the petitioner. 7.5) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that Joint Registrar(Commerce) issued letter dated 27.09.2019 and thereafter called the petitioner for scrutiny of the files on 11.10.2019 and files were returned on 20.11.2019 and again on 31.1.2020, files were submitted to the Office of the Registrar for granting approval and thereafter, the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. 7.6) It was therefore, submitted that though hearing was given by the Joint Registrar (Commerce), the impugned order is passed by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies which is not tenable in law as the person who has granted hearing ought to have passed the order. It was submitted that after re-submission of the files, no hearing was granted and the impugned order was passed resulting into breach of principles of natural justice. 7.7) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that post facto permission can be granted under section 71 of the Act as per the settled legal position considering the huge investment made by purchasing land, machinery and chilling stations have already been established and are functioning for the benefit of the members of the petitioner society. 7.7) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that post facto permission can be granted under section 71 of the Act as per the settled legal position considering the huge investment made by purchasing land, machinery and chilling stations have already been established and are functioning for the benefit of the members of the petitioner society. It was therefore, submitted that District Registrar ought to have granted permission under section 71 of the Act by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 7.8) It was submitted that the Deputy Secretary in the order rejecting the revision application has simply considered that there is some discrepancy in the resolution passed by the general body of the society and the actual cost and did not consider that supervisors/watchman’s cabin and the compound wall had been constructed and all details and particulars were produced on record. 7.9) It was submitted that after having submitted all the details and particulars as demanded by the authorities under the Act, now the Registrar could not have rejected such application on the ground that after the project is over, no such permission under section 71 of the Act can be granted. It was submitted that the State Government has also failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter and therefore, the confirmation of the order passed by the Registrar in Revision Application also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7.10) It was submitted that the application filed by the petitioner under section 71 of the Act was absolutely not required and therefore it may be declared that for expansion of business and for construction of chilling plant and other construction so as to achieve the object and purpose of the bye-laws, no permission under section 71 of the Act read with Rule 29 of the Rules is required by the petitioner society. 7.11) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that the petitioner has invested large amount in the projects after taking necessary permissions to extend support and give benefit to its members from all the authorities and the petitioner is one of the most profit making society in the State of Gujarat and therefore, permission as prayed for ought to have been granted. 7.12) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani further submitted that under the byelaws of the petitioner society, the objects of the Society are prescribed. 7.12) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Jani further submitted that under the byelaws of the petitioner society, the objects of the Society are prescribed. Bye-law No.5(1.5) authorises the petitioner to purchase the land and plant and machinery for achieving the objects of the petitioner society. It was submitted that the bye-laws are approved by the Registrar and therefore, so far as the provisions of the bye-laws are concerned, the same would have the legal force to the petitioners as also to the Registrar. 7.13) It was submitted that as per the bye-laws, the functions of the petitioner society being in relation to the milk and milk products, the purchase of the land is part of the object of the bye-laws of the society and is in relation to day to day activities. It was therefore, submitted that for carrying out the activities which are referred to in bye-laws of the society, no permission of the Registrar would be required under section 71 of the Act in relation to investment of the funds of the society. 7.14) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that when a society intends to invest funds in any land or building, then the permission of the Registrar may be required but if the land or building is required for the purpose of achieving the objects of the society, no such permission is required under section 71 of the Act as the Section 71(1)(ff) of the Act which is applicable in the facts of the case, is in context of investment of funds of the society into land or building. It was submitted that Rule 29 of the Rules in relation to investment of funds is to be interpreted in harmony with section 71(1)(ff) of the Act. It was further submitted that under section 71(1)(ff) of the Act, it has not been provided that land or building is to be advantageous to the society in the conduct of its business and provisions contained in Rule 29(1)(c) of the Rules travels beyond the scope and the express language of section 71(1)(ff) of the Act. 7.15) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jani further submitted that earlier the petitioner society had submitted proposal on 5.12.2005 for establishing its plant at another place i.e. at Village Shihor, Tal Shihor, District Bhavnagar and Joint Registrar (Commerce) had granted permission vide order dated 25.4.2006. 7.15) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jani further submitted that earlier the petitioner society had submitted proposal on 5.12.2005 for establishing its plant at another place i.e. at Village Shihor, Tal Shihor, District Bhavnagar and Joint Registrar (Commerce) had granted permission vide order dated 25.4.2006. 7.16) It was submitted that the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act has delegated the powers to the officers for implementation of the certain provisions of the Act. It was submitted that at Serial No.3 of the said notification, Joint Registrar in head office is granted all the powers of Registrar under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, except the powers under sections 71(1)(e) and 71(1)(f) of the Act. 7.17) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that the investment of funds in relation to land or building comes within section 71(1)(ff) of the Act and the powers under section 71(1)(e) and 71(1)(f) are with the Registrar Cooperative Society, however, the the powers for the rest of the permissions under section 71 of the Act are with the Joint Registrar in head office who is the Joint Registrar (Commerce). Therefore, it is the Joint Registrar (Commerce) has the powers to grant the permission under section 71(1)(ff) of the Act. It was submitted that it was for this reason that earlier Joint Registrar (Commerce) has granted the permission to the proposal of the petitioner with respect to plant at Shihor. 7.18) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jani, therefore, submitted that the Registrar Cooperative Societies does not have the power to pass order if the case falls under section 71(1)(ff) of the Act and therefore the order dated 7.8.2020 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Society is bad in law. 7.19) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued circular on 14.10.1999 stating that for expansion of business of the cooperative milk marketing society, there is no need to ask for the permission under section 71 of the Act read with Rule 29 of the Rules with the office of the Registrar and therefore, considering the circular dated 14.10.1999 read with object and purpose of the bye-laws registered by the Registrar himself of the petitioner society, there was no need for the petitioner society to ask for the permission under section 71 of the Act read with Rule 29 of the Rules. 8. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent State submitted that there is a sheer negligence on part of the petitioner as no application was filed under section 71 of the Act read with Rule 29 of the Rules which provides for investment of funds by the Cooperative Society. It was submitted that section 71(1)(ff) of the Act and the Rule 29(1)(c) of the Rules are applicable in the facts of the case and as the petitioner has failed to take the approval prior to the investment made by it, the same is rightly not approved by the Registrar as section 71 of the Act read with the Rules clearly provide for previous sanction of the Registrar in the matter of investment of funds under the Act and the Registrar has administrative power whether to decide or reject the sanction as sought by the society under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 8.1) It was submitted that merely because respondent Joint Registrar has made inquiries, it would not itself render the impugned order as nullity on the ground of order being passed by the Registrar with the assistance of Assistant Registrar or Joint Registrar. It was submitted that upon submission of the proposal made by the concerned District Registrar after scrutiny on 3.08.2019, certain queries were raised by the Joint Registrar (Commerce) on behalf of the Registrar and communicated to the concerned District Registrar. It was therefore, submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is not tenable with regard to the authority of the respondent Registrar to pass the impugned order. In support of such submission, reliance is placed on the following averments made in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2- Joint Registrar (Commerce): “11. I further say and submit that as per the hierarchy of Registrar and his subordinate officers, as provided under sub-rule 2 of the Section 3, to assist the Registrar, such application is to be submitted through proper channel of submission, and accordingly upon submission of the proposal made by the concerned District Registrar, after scrutiny, on 03.08.2019 certain queries were raised by the Jt. Registrar (Commerce), Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State on behalf of the Registrar, Cooperative had communicated to the concerned District Registrar to call for certain details as per the queries raised from the petitioner - society. Registrar (Commerce), Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State on behalf of the Registrar, Cooperative had communicated to the concerned District Registrar to call for certain details as per the queries raised from the petitioner - society. The copy of the communication dated 03.08.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R1 to this affidavit in reply. 12. On 26.08.2019 the petitioner - society had responded with the query raised vide communication dated 03.08.2019 and after comparing the documents on record, more particularly the queries raised vide communication dated 03.08.2019 and response of the petitioner -society dated 26.08.2019, the District Registrar, Cooperative Society, Bhavnagar had given detail opinion on 09.09.2019 by opining not the grant approval on the proposal sought under section 71 of the Act. Copies of the communication dated 26.08.2019 of the petitioner - Society and opinion dated 09.09.2019 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R2 Collectively to this affidavit in reply. 13. I say and submit that as per the administrative procedure, the Registrar Cooperative Societies, State of Gujarat is the authority to take decision on such proposal for sought under Section 71 of the Act read with Rule 29 of the Rules, on 27.09.2019 on behalf of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State, the Jt. Registrar (Commerce). Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State had conveyed the concerned District Registrar and the Chairman/M.D. of the petitioner - society to remain present on 11.10.2019 with the necessary documentary evidence in relation with the proposal sought u/s. 71 of the Act and to provide opportunity of hearing. The Letter dated 27.09.2019 is placed at page no. 79 with the memo of the petition. 119 14. I say and submit that effective hearing was given on 11.10.2019, wherein it the petitioner - society was failed to produced necessary clarification with regards to the lands in question. The details of N.A. and even the lands were not mutated in the name of the petitioner - society in the 7/12 abstract. The expenses were much higher than the estimated expense and according on file the decision was taken to return the proposal. I crave leave to tender the original file for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of the present matter. 15. The expenses were much higher than the estimated expense and according on file the decision was taken to return the proposal. I crave leave to tender the original file for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of the present matter. 15. I further say and submit that pursuant to the hearing on 11.10.2019, on 20.11.2019 one more chance was given to the petitioner society to submit the proposal resolving the queries the said communication is place at page no. 80 with the memo of the petition and in response the petitioner - society had submitted the communication on 31.01.2020 placed at page no. 81 with the memo of the petition.” 8.2) It was submitted that after considering all the relevant documentary evidence on record, the Registrar has passed the impugned order rejecting the application under section 71 of the Act after finding prima facie discrepancy in the record produced by the petitioner society and he said order is confirmed by the revisional authority under section 155 of the Act. It was therefore, submitted that in view of concurrent findings, no interference may be made while exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8.3) It was submitted that letter dated 14.10.1999 referred to and relied upon by the petitioner society at page no. 108 of the petition is not relevant as the same is for approval of expansion of pouch packing and storage facilities not related to purchase of land and building and construction of the building as expansion and extension in the same area and hence, prior sanction of Registrar is required for the purchase of land and expansion and construction. It was therefore submitted that in the facts of the case, the application seeking sanction from the Registrar as required under section 71 of the Act is rightly rejected by the Registrar and confirmed by the revisional authority. 9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, it appears that the impugned order is passed by the Registrar without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, there is a clear breach of principles of natural justice. 10. Apart from the breach of principles of natural justice, the petitioner has raised an issue with regard to the applicability of section 71 of the Act. 10. Apart from the breach of principles of natural justice, the petitioner has raised an issue with regard to the applicability of section 71 of the Act. Section 71 of the Act reads as under : “71. Investment of funds:- (1) A society may invest, or deposits its fund,— (a) in a Central Bank, or the State Cooperative Bank, (b) in the State Bank of India, (c) in the Postal Savings bank, (d) in any of the securities specified in section 20 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, (e) in shares or security, or debentures, issued by any other society with limited liability or (f) in a Scheduled co-operative bank as defined in clause (2) of section 2 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and having its registered office within the State or in any nationalised bank, (ff) in any land or building- (i) where the money in a building fund established by a society is sufficient for the purpose, or (ii) where the money in such a fund is insufficient for the purpose or where a society has not established such fund, with the previous sanction of the Registrar: Provided that the Registrar shall endeavor to decide the question as to previous sanction be given or not, within ninety days of the receipt of an application for such sanction, (g) in any corporation owned or controlled by the Government of Gujarat and other Scheduled Banks not covered under clause (f), with the prior approval of the State Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf: Provided that in the case of the State Cooperative Bank, the Central Co-operative Banks and the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies, the Reserve Bank of India may issue further guidelines restricting or enlarging the scope of investment in any institutions approved for the purpose under this section. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) the Registrar may, with the approval of this State Co-operative Central Council, order a society or a class or societies to invest any funds in a particular manner, or may impose conditions regarding the made of investment of such funds.” 11. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) the Registrar may, with the approval of this State Co-operative Central Council, order a society or a class or societies to invest any funds in a particular manner, or may impose conditions regarding the made of investment of such funds.” 11. On perusal of the above provision, it is clear that clause (ff) of sub-section(1) of Section 71 provides for investment of funds in any land or building where the money in a building fund established by a society is sufficient for the purpose or where the money in such a fund is insufficient for the purpose or where a society has not established such fund, with the previous sanction of the Registrar. 12. It is therefore, necessary to obtain previous sanction of the Registrar if the investment of funds in any land and building is insufficient for the purpose or where the society has not established such fund. However, in the facts of the case, the petitioner society had enough funds for investment in the purchase of land and building, therefore, there was no need for any previous sanction of the Registrar. The entire question of getting the previous sanction of Registrar is therefore, contrary to the provisions of section 71 of the Act and the respondent Registrar could not have rejected the application for granting registration only on ground that the previous sanction of the Registrar is not obtained by the petitioner. 13. In view of the above, petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 7.7/8.2020 passed by the Registrar and the impugned order dated 20.01.2022 passed by respondent no.1 in all the petitions are quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded back to the District Registrar to decide the application to get sanction of the Registrar on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.