JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Patel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, learned advocate Ms. Urmi Raval for learned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State. 2. 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 or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the respondents to implement the decision taken by the Production, Co-operation and Irrigation Committee vide Resolution No. 10 of the meeting dated 31.12.2018 and thereby be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to issue registration certificate to the proposed society i.e. Sardar Patel Krushi Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to issue registration certificate to the proposed society i.e. Sardar Patel Krushi Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited. (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Chief Promoter of proposed Sardar Patel Krushi Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited who had applied to the District Panchayat, Aravalli for registering the society on 01.04.2016 in the prescribed form. 3.1 By way of notification dated 31.08.1981, power to register a cooperative society under section 9 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (For short “the Act 1961”) are delegated to the District Panchayat by way of notification issued under section 162 of the Act, 1961. Accordingly power to register cooperative society were delegated to the District Panchayat by the State Government. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid application of the proposed society for registration was returned by respondent no. 2, Assistant District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Panchayat, Sabarkantha vide order dated 17.11.2017 on the ground that other societies have objected against the registration of the proposed society. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid application of the proposed society for registration was returned by respondent no. 2, Assistant District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Panchayat, Sabarkantha vide order dated 17.11.2017 on the ground that other societies have objected against the registration of the proposed society. 3.3 The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2017 preferred Appeal No. 130/2018 before the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State under section 153 of the Act, 1961. 3.4 The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the appellate authority, the order dated 17.11.2017 was set aside and the Assistant District Registrar was directed to consider the application of the proposed society for registration on merits. 3.5 Thereafter, the powers to consider the application for registration were delegated to the Production, Cooperation and Irrigation Committee of the District Panchayat. The said Committee in its meeting held on 31.12.2018 by resolution no. 10 resolved to register the proposed society and rejected the objections submitted by the existing society on the ground that there is no material produced to show that the registration of the proposed society would adversely affect the existing society. 3.6 Along with the proposed society of the petitioner, there are seven other societies which have been registered by the Committee. 3.7 It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid resolution the respondent no. 2-Assistant District Registrar has to issue the registration certificate which is just a formality and a managerial function. 3.8 Respondent no. 2 issued registration certificates to other seven societies on 27.11.2018 as per the decision taken in the meeting of the Committee on 31.12.2018, but, in the case of the proposed society of the petitioner, registration certificate was not issued. The petitioner therefore, requested for issuance of registration certificate by making an application but the same was rejected by communication dated 14.08.2019 issued by respondent no. 2 stating that in the meeting dated 31.12.2018 of the Committee in the agenda notice, the said issue was not included and it was falsely stated that the village people had objected to registration and therefore, no such registration certificate can be issued. 2 stating that in the meeting dated 31.12.2018 of the Committee in the agenda notice, the said issue was not included and it was falsely stated that the village people had objected to registration and therefore, no such registration certificate can be issued. 3.9 It also appears that by notification dated 27.11.2018, the State Government has taken back the powers delegated for the registration from the District Panchayat and conferred the same upon the District Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. It is the case of the petitioner that such notification would not have any effect on the case of the proposed society of the petitioner because the application of the proposed society was pending for consideration of the District Panchayat. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2- Assistant District Registrar, Cooperative Society (Panchayat), Aravali could not have refused to issue the registration certificate to the proposed society of the petitioner pursuant to the resolution passed by the Committee which has been conferred power to consider the application for registration. 4.1 It was submitted that respondent no. 2 had no authority to sit in appeal over the decision of the Committee of the District Panchayat which was empowered to decide the application for registration and once it resolved to register the proposed society of the petitioner, respondent no. 2 being only an administrative officer, subordinate to the District Panchayat could not have ignored the decision of the Committee of the District Panchayat to issue the registration certificate to the proposed society. 4.2 It was submitted that in case of other societies, registration certificates have been issued, however, the registration certificate is not issued in case of the proposed society of the petitioner for the reasons best known to respondent no. 2 on flimsy ground that the Committee passed the resolution without agenda. 4.3 It was submitted that it is the apprehension of the petitioner that as the petitioner is not supported by party in power, respondent no. 2 under political dictate has not issued the registration certificate. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Patel for the District Panchayat, learned advocate Ms. Urmi Raval for learned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah for the newly joined respondent nos. 2 under political dictate has not issued the registration certificate. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Patel for the District Panchayat, learned advocate Ms. Urmi Raval for learned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah for the newly joined respondent nos. 3 and 4, who have raised objection in the first round of consideration to grant registration, submitted that the District Panchayat has passed the resolution though there was no such work on agenda of the meeting held on 31.12.2018. It was submitted that the resolution was passed contrary to the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act, 1961. 5.1 Learned advocate Ms. Raval submitted that no opportunity to raise objection was provided by the Committee of the District Panchayat while passing the resolution on 31.12.2018. It was pointed out that earlier there was a cooperative society namely Radodara Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. which went into liquidation in village Peta Paru and respondent no. 3-Sabarkantha District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. has to recover the outstanding dues of more than Rs. 52,57,000/- from it. It was submitted that some of the members of the said Cooperative Society are the promoters in the present proposed society. 5.2 It was submitted that by letter dated 17.11.2017 it was intimated to the District Panchayat that the promoters of the proposed Cooperative society were same as the members of the other cooperative society which had huge outstanding dues and therefore, proposed society of the petitioner could not have been granted registration as the same would be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for respondent no. 2 has referred to and relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2: “3. It is submitted that, earlier there was co-operative society in said village, i.e. in Peta paru of said village which went liquidation. Some of the members of that Co-operative Society are the promoters in present propose Mandali. There was dues of the Sabarkantha District Central Cooperative Bank in earlier Co operative Society of said village, i.e. The Radodara Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, Radodara (presently in liquidation). So, by letter dated 17-11-2017, it has been intimated that due to this debt no registration can be done of petitioner's propose Mandali, i.e. Sardar Patel Krushi Seva Sahakari Mandali. There was dues of the Sabarkantha District Central Cooperative Bank in earlier Co operative Society of said village, i.e. The Radodara Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, Radodara (presently in liquidation). So, by letter dated 17-11-2017, it has been intimated that due to this debt no registration can be done of petitioner's propose Mandali, i.e. Sardar Patel Krushi Seva Sahakari Mandali. It is further submitted that, after that, an order passed by Co-Op. Department of Government, I had again take it for process of registration under the provision of the Act. During that time, a resolution No. 10 has been passed in the meeting of the Committee of Dist. Panchayat wherein I have been directed to registered the same, I was not been agreed with the same as said subject was not in Agenda of the meeting. I have objected the same. 4. It is submitted that, the petitioner stated that, I have done registration of 7 societies wherein No Objection Certificates have been received, so those have been registered but work of registration of Petitioner's Mandali was not in Agenda, so I am not agreed with the said resolution also. It is further submitted that, by letter of the State Government dated 27-11-2018, all the rights of District Registrar of Dist. Panchayat had been taken away and given to Dist. Registrar Co-operative Society. 5. It is submitted that, by the villages of Radodara Village have raise their objections for registration of the petitioner Mandali. It is further submitted that, there was due of Rs. 52,57,000/- of the Sabarkantha District Central Cooperative Bank to the earlier Co operative Society of same village wherein there are total 6 promoter members are in present propose Sardar Patel Krishi Sahakari Mandali, which was intimated to the present deponent by letter dated 09-09-2019. It is also submitted that, looking to the objections or villages and also 6 promoter members of propose society were members of earlier society went in liquidation and there was dues of the Sabarkantha District Co-operative Bank, the present deponent has considered all the aspects and taken proper decision in eye of law. 6. It is submitted that, till date no decision has been taken for registration of petitioner's Mandali and for that, necessary details have been asked for from the TDO, Bayad and by Government Notification dated 27-11-2018 all the powers of District Panchayat taken and given to Registrar Co-op. 6. It is submitted that, till date no decision has been taken for registration of petitioner's Mandali and for that, necessary details have been asked for from the TDO, Bayad and by Government Notification dated 27-11-2018 all the powers of District Panchayat taken and given to Registrar Co-op. of the District, so no final decision has been taken by the present deponent.” 6.1 It was submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader that as the proposed society of the petitioner was represented by the same members of the defaulter society, registration could not have been granted as per proviso to section 4 of the Act, 1961. It was submitted that the respondent no. 2 has therefore, rightly did not issue the registration certificate. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also perused the materials on record. It is true that respondent no. 2 has no right to sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Committee of the District Panchayat to grant registration to the proposed society of the petitioner. However, the petitioner has not denied the fact that the promoters of the proposed society are members of another cooperative society namely, Radodara Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. presently in liquidation represented by respondent no. 4, with huge outstanding to respondent no. 3 of more than Rs. 52,57,000/-. Thus it appears that the District Panchayat passed the resolution contrary to the facts on record and contrary to the provisions of section 4 of the Act, 1961 which reads as under: “4. Societies which may be registered - A society, which has as its object the promotion of the economic interests or general welfare of its members or of the public, in accordance with co-operative principles, or as society, may be registered under this Act: Provided that it shall not be registered if, in the opinion of the Registrar, it is economically unsound, or its registration may have an adverse effect upon any other society, or it is opposed to, or its working is likely to be in contravention of public policy.” 8. As per proviso to section 4 of the Act, 1961, no registration could have been granted to the proposed society of the petitioner as it would amount to granting registration to the society, promoters of which are defaulters having obtained the loan from the cooperative bank and therefore, such registration would be economically unsound and its working would be likely to be in contravention of public policy. 9. The Committee of the District Panchayat has passed the resolution no. 10 in the meeting held on 31.12.2018 without providing any opportunity to respondent no. 3-Sabarkantha District Cooperative Bank Ltd who objected for registration in the first round. In the resolution it is recorded that the bank did not submit any objection however, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent no. 3 bank was called upon to submit objections by the Committee of the District Panchayat. Thus the resolution no. 10 passed by the Committee of the District Panchayat was without considering the observations made in the remand order passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) in appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of rejection passed by the Assistant District Registrar. 10. The respondent no. 2-Assistant Registrar was therefore, justified in not issuing the registration certificate to the proposed society of the petitioner. The Assistant District Registrar in the rejection order dated 14.08.2019 has stated that as per the order passed by the Government for the purpose of registration of cooperative societies, the record was sent to office of the District Registrar. It was also stated that there was no issue in the agenda for the meeting dated 31.12.2018 for registration of the proposed society of the petitioner and no proposal was placed before the Committee in view of the objections raised by the local village people as well as the bank for registration of the proposed society of the petitioner. Hence, considering the totality of the facts emerging from the record it cannot be said that respondent no. Hence, considering the totality of the facts emerging from the record it cannot be said that respondent no. 2 has to act only as an administrative officer to grant registration because as per the provisions of section 4 it is for the District Registrar to register the cooperative society and when the power to grant registration is conferred upon the District Panchayat, as per provision of section 8 of the Act, 1961 the application is made by the petitioner for registration before the District Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. Therefore, in the facts of the case respondent no. 2 was justified in refusing to issue the registration certificate to the proposed society of the petitioner. 11. The contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 was only an administrative officer is not tenable because respondent no. 2 was supposed to issue the registration certificate as per the provisions of the Act, 1961 and the Committee of District Panchayat having failed to invite the objection from respondent no. 3 bank though in the earlier round the objections were submitted by respondent no. 3 and such objections were considered and registration was rejected. The appellate authority remanded the matter only on the ground that reasons were not recorded in the order of rejection of registration of the proposed society. Therefore, the Committee of the District Panchayat has ignored the facts which were already on record by passing the resolution in the meeting held on 31.12.2018. In such circumstances, respondent no. 2 has rightly rejected the prayer made by the petitioner to issue the certificate of registration of the proposed society. 12. For the foregoing reasons, petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.