JUDGMENT : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for respondent No.5 through video conference. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.07.2017 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeal), Co-operation, Agriculture, Farmer and Co-operation Department in Revision Application No. 35 of 2016 whereby, the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2, Additional Registrar Co-operative Department (Appeal) in Appeal No. 32 of 15 and order dated 02.02.2015 of the District Registrar granting registration to respondent No. 5-society are upheld. 3. The petitioner society is registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (For short 'the Act, 1961') for the benefit of its members, residents of the Boriyavi village since 1963. 3.1. The petitioner society collects the milk from its members and sales the same to the District Milk Union. 3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the family members of the respondent No. 5-society formed one society viz. Panchshil [Boriyavi] Milk Producers Cooperative Societies Limited in the year 2005. However, the said society was not granted registration by the respondent No. 4-Registrar and therefore it was closed down. The petitioner has also filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 373 of 2008 before this Court against the said society. 3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that after failing to register the aforesaid society, respondent No. 5-society was formed and applied for registration on 07.01.2015. The petitioner raised objections against registration of the respondent No. 5-society pointing out that the registration of respondent No. 5-society would be contrary to the Government policy to the effect that only one society in a town should be permitted to be registered for the purpose of collection of the milk from the farmers. 3.4. The petitioner raised six objections before the respondent No. 4-Registrar for denying the registration to respondent No. 5-society. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 5-society was just 150 meters away from the petitioner-society and only the male members are conducting the affairs of the respondent No. 5-society though the same is female society. It was also pointed out that respondent No. 5-society is formed only for the purpose of taking the benefit of Government policies. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 5-society was just 150 meters away from the petitioner-society and only the male members are conducting the affairs of the respondent No. 5-society though the same is female society. It was also pointed out that respondent No. 5-society is formed only for the purpose of taking the benefit of Government policies. It was also contended that the respondent No. 5-society was earlier formed in the year 2005 and this Court did not permit such society to operate without registration. The petitioner also pointed out that there are more than 700 members of the petitioner society consisting of more than 400 female members and therefore, the petitioner would suffer economic loss if the respondent No. 5-society is allowed to be registered. 3.5. The petitioner also offered to accommodate 50% women employees in the management of the petitioner-society. 3.6. However, the respondent No. 4-Registrar, by order dated 02.02.2015 after considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, granted registration to the respondent No. 5-society considering the fact that respondent No. 5-society has more than 200 female members and there is a positive report received from the Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operatives Societies. It was also considered the fact that as per the Government Policy of the year 2014, women were required to be promoted. It was also verified by respondent No. 4-Registrar that none of the members of the respondent No. 5-society is a member of another co-operative society. Respondent No. 4 also considered that about 1300 liters of milk was purchased by respondent No. 5-society in 10 days and there was a balance of Rs. 6,58,000/- as on 05.01.2015 and in the Boriyavi town consisting of more than 6000 population at the relevant time, the registration of the respondent No. 5-society would not adversely affect any other society including the petitioner-society. 3.7. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order passed by the respondent No. 4 by preferring an Appeal No. 32 of 2015 before the Additional Registrar Appeals under section 153 of the Act, 1961. The Additional Registrar (Appeals) by detailed order dated 24.02.2016, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the registration granted by the respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5-society. 3.8. The Additional Registrar (Appeals) by detailed order dated 24.02.2016, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the registration granted by the respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5-society. 3.8. The petitioner therefore being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Registrar appeal preferred Revision Application No. 35 of 2016 before the respondent No. 2-Deputy Secretary (Appeals) under section 155 of the Act, 1961 which was also rejected vide order dated 29.07.2017. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary appearing for the petitioner-society submitted that the petitioner-society is in operation since 1963 and therefore, registration of the respondent No. 5-society would adversely affect the functioning of the petitioner-society. It was pointed out that the family members of the respondent No. 5-society are the members of the petitioner-society and earlier also, the male family members of the respondent No. 5-society proposed to register a society in name of Panchshil (Boriyavi) Milk Producers Cooperative Societies Limited but their society was not granted registration and therefore, with a view to avail the benefit of Government policy, respondent No. 5-society was formed by the male members in the name of the female members as a women society. It was submitted that by learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary that due to registration granted to respondent No. 5-society, procurement of the milk of the petitioner-society is also reduced to the extent of 84000 of liters of milk and the said fact is also noticed by the auditor in the audit report. 4.1. It was submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner-society were not considered or dealt with by respondent No. 4-Registrar while passing the impugned order dated 02.02.2015 granting registration to the respondent No. 5-society. 4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary also relied upon the Government Resolution dated 05.05.2015 which provides that no Milk Producers Co-operative Society can be registered in a village where already such society is functioning. It was submitted that in spite of the Government Policy, respondent No. 4 has granted registration to respondent No. 5-society. 4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary therefore submitted that impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside as they are contrary to the facts emerging from the record as well as the Government Policy for not granting registration to another society in the same town. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. 4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary therefore submitted that impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside as they are contrary to the facts emerging from the record as well as the Government Policy for not granting registration to another society in the same town. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for respondent No. 5-society submitted that the respondent No. 5-society is formed by the women of Boriyavi Town and all female members of the respondent No. 5-society manage the co-operative society for procurement of the milk and respondent No. 4-Registrar, after taking into considering the facts on record, has granted registration as per the provisions of section 4 of the Act, 1961. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Desai in support of his submission relied upon the following averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 5-society. "6. It is submitted that even the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mehsana vide order dated 02.02.2015 passed detailed order while rejecting the objections of the petitioner and registering the respondent No. 5-society, the District Registrar has considered each and every aspects and has found that there would not be any adverse effect on the petitioner society. Therefore, such finding of facts arrived at by the authorities below on consideration of the documentary evidences may not be disturbed in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is submitted that even otherwise on merits also, the petitioner has no case. It is submitted that the respondent No. 5-society is registered on 02.02.2015. The respondent No. 5 would be able to demonstrate that there is no adverse effect on the petitioner society because of registration of the respondent No. 5 society and on the contrary the turnover of the petitioner Society and the profits of the petitioner society has increased. It is submitted that in the year 2015-16, the turnover of the petitioner society was Rs. 4.31 Crores, in the year 2016-17, the turnover has increased to Rs. 4.60 Crores, in the year 2017-18, the turnover has increased to Rs. 5.25 Crores and in the year 2018-19, the turnover was Rs. 5.25 Crores. It is submitted that the profits of the petitioner society in the year 2015-16 was Rs. 71,299/-. The said profit was Rs. 1,36,000/- for the year 2016-17, Rs. 2,29,000/- for the year 2017-18 and Rs. 1,81,000/- for the year 2018-19. 5.25 Crores and in the year 2018-19, the turnover was Rs. 5.25 Crores. It is submitted that the profits of the petitioner society in the year 2015-16 was Rs. 71,299/-. The said profit was Rs. 1,36,000/- for the year 2016-17, Rs. 2,29,000/- for the year 2017-18 and Rs. 1,81,000/- for the year 2018-19. 8. Further,-in the year 2014-15, when the respondent No. 5 society was registered, the petitioner society had 791 members, whereas as on today, the petitioner society has 925 members. Therefore, the turnover of the petitioner society has increased, profit has increased and also the membership has increased. Therefore, there is no adverse effect on the petitioner society on registration of the respondent No. 5-society. 9. As far as the respondent No. 5-society is concerned, the respondent No. 5 society had turnover of Rs. 2.52 Crores in the year 2017-18 and in the year 2018-19, it has turnover of Rs. 2.80 Crores. The profit of the respondent No. 5 society in 2017-18 was Rs. 80,000/- and in the year 2018-19, it has profit of Rs. 50,652/-. The respondent No. 8 society is functioning since 2014-15 and has all female members as its members. Hence, the respondent No. 5 society which is functioning since 2014-15 and has all female members and is working for the upliftment of female members, its registration may not be interfered with. 10. It is submitted that the Boriyavi village has about 8000 total population. There is no common member between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5-society. The list submitted at page 82 is incorrect list and incorrect names have been given by the petitioner. Copy of list showing correct names of members of both the societies is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R1 to this reply. 11. It is also required to be stated that the respondent No. 5-society came into existence on 12.09.2014 i.e. it started its operations from 12.09.2014 as proposed society. It is submitted that on 11.09.2014, total turnover of the petitioner society was 2882 liters. The next day i.e. on 12.09.2014, its total turnover was 2893 liters. Therefore, on coming into existence of the respondent No. 5 society, there is no adverse effect at all on the working of the petitioner society even on the next day of registration of respondent No. 5 society. 12. The next day i.e. on 12.09.2014, its total turnover was 2893 liters. Therefore, on coming into existence of the respondent No. 5 society, there is no adverse effect at all on the working of the petitioner society even on the next day of registration of respondent No. 5 society. 12. The petitioner society was given opportunity of hearing by the District Registrar and after considering the objections of the petitioner, the District Registrar has passed the order dated 02.02.2015 registering the petitioner society. Therefore, the authorities below have considered each and every objection and have found that there is no adverse effect on the petitioner. 13. Further, as has been found by the authorities below, the respondent No. 5 is a womens' society which is running and managed by women and is registered with the object of upliftment and empowerment of women by providing source of income. Therefore, the petitioner not being able to show any adverse effect, the authorities below were absolutely justified in registering the respondent No. 5-society. 14. It is submitted that in the neighbouring village namely Mevad which is situated at a distance of only 2 kms, two another milk producers' societies are functioning and recently only i.e. in 2019 one of the said societies is registered and is functioning properly without there being any objection. Therefore, the Petitioner has absolutely no case at all and unnecessary for extraneous consideration is objecting to the registration of the respondent No. 5-society. 15. Even otherwise also, now after registration, respondent No. 5-society is functioning since 2014-15 and is earning profits. Therefore, also no interference may be made in the petition and petition may be dismissed, as any interference that may be against registration would have direct effect on the members who are earning their livelihood out of providing milk to the society." 5.2. Relying upon the above averments in the affidavit-in-reply it was submitted that the petitioner has failed to point out any factor which adversely affect the petitioner-society by granting registration to the respondent No. 5-society. It was further submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the three authorities which should not be interfered while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court. It was further submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the three authorities which should not be interfered while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court. It was submitted that Additional Registrar (Appeal) as well as Deputy Secretary (Appeal) have exhaustively dealt with each of the contentions raised by the petitioner while rejecting the appeal and the revision confirming order passed by the respondent No. 4-Registrar granting registration to respondent No. 5-society. 6. I have considered rival submissions canvassed by learned advocates for both the sides and I have also perused the documents on record. 7. Section 4 of the Act, 1961 provides for registration to any co-operative society 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 cooperative principles, or a society established with the object of facilitating the operations of any such 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. On perusal of the above provision it is clear that a society which has its object the promotion of the economic interests or general welfare of its members in accordance with co-operative principles which may be registered under the 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. Therefore, Registrar can deny registration of any society which has its object the promotion of the economic interests or general welfare of its members in any of the following three situations are found by the Registrar viz. (i) that such society is economically unsound or (ii) registration may have an adverse effect upon any other society (iii) or it is opposed or its working is likely to be in contravention of public policy. 9. (i) that such society is economically unsound or (ii) registration may have an adverse effect upon any other society (iii) or it is opposed or its working is likely to be in contravention of public policy. 9. From the facts emerging from the record respondent No. 5-society is not found to be economically unsound since it is recorded by the respondent No. 4-Registrar while granting registration to at such society has balance of Rs. 6,58,000/- on the date of passing order. Moreover, there are about 200 female members of the society. 10. The District Registrar-respondent No. 4 has also considered the fact that population of the Boriyavi Town is about 6000 at the relevant time and granting registration to respondent No. 5-society would not have an adverse effect on any other society including the petitioner-society. Respondent No. 4-Registrar has found that granting registration to respondent No. 5-society would be in consonance with the Government policy of promoting women. Reliance was also placed by the District Registrar upon observations of this Court in order passed in Special Civil Application No. 15547 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No. 15396 of 2014 dated 17.11.2014 which reads as under: "7. It is well-accepted that a proviso cannot control the main section and it can be at the most an exception which is again providing for a limited area where such an opinion is formed by the Registrar. In other words, the Registrar must form an opinion that such a ground exists. As a matter of fact, what the petitioners desire is a kind of monopoly to avoid any competition which cannot be permitted. The underlying purpose of the co-operative movement is, on the contrary, to encourage formation of societies for better and active participation of the people even at the gross root level at villages to make them more self-reliant. Again, the Constitution provides for making a special provision for the females and if with the object of achieving the constitutional goals when more females are encouraged for participation even at the grass root level at the villages in such co-operative movement, any such prayer for restriction would run counter to the very underlying purpose of the co-operative movement. In fact, the fundamental right to form an association or society or to carry on any trade or business can be restricted only subject to reasonable restrictions as provided. Again, the proviso to sec. In fact, the fundamental right to form an association or society or to carry on any trade or business can be restricted only subject to reasonable restrictions as provided. Again, the proviso to sec. 4 does not refer to reasonable restriction as contemplated in the constitution under Art. 19. Therefore, the submission made by learned advocate Shri Vaghela cannot be accepted. 8. Again, if such restrictions are imposed, it would not only run counter to the cooperative movement, but it is also contrary to the scheme of the constitution which frowns upon any such restriction and Art. 14 and 19 provide for equality of opportunity and Art. 19 provides for freedom of trade, business and to carry on any such activity. Therefore, the submissions made by learned advocate Shri Vaghela is misconceived. 9. One more aspect which is required to be considered, as submitted by the learned AGP, is that a statutory remedy is provided under sec. 9 and the petitioners can lodge the objection. Sec. 11 refers to the power of the Registrar to decide certain issues arising for the formation and registration or continuation of the societies. Therefore, again, it refers to the opinion of the Registrar as contemplated in the proviso to sec. 4 of the Act. It is in these circumstances the present petition cannot be entertained and the communication dated 30.7.2014 is for encouraging the women to form the societies and for participation of rural women to make themselves self-reliant with more participation for the economic interest of the family and in turn the society as a whole. Therefore, if such a prayer is granted, it would run counter to the underlying principles of the constitution. Further, it is a matter of policy for the government to make suitable efforts for women empowerment and make them more active in every field including social and economic fields even at the rural level. 11. The Additional Registrar (Appeals) has also considered the provisions of section 4 of the Act, 1961 and has also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Vachhol Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited v. State of Gujarat and Ors. in Special Civil Application No. 15560 of 2003 rendered on 07.10.2006 to come to the conclusion that Registrar has not committed any error while granting registration to the respondent No. 5-society and therefore, rightly not interfered in the decision of the Registrar. in Special Civil Application No. 15560 of 2003 rendered on 07.10.2006 to come to the conclusion that Registrar has not committed any error while granting registration to the respondent No. 5-society and therefore, rightly not interfered in the decision of the Registrar. The Revisional Authority has also considered the facts again and has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 15560 of 2003 and Special Civil Application No. 15396 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No. 15547 of 2014 and thereafter, concurrently held that no interference is required in the order granting registration to the respondent No. 5-society. 12. In view of the above concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Appellant and Revisional Authority confirming the order granting registration to the respondent No. 5-society, no interference is required to be made while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, more particularly when the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or error in the recording of the facts by any of the authority. The respondent No. 5-Society has also submitted in the reply that there are about 925 members of the petitioner-society on the date of filing of the reply showing that the members of the petitioner-society has increased over a period of time meaning thereby that there was no adverse effect of working of the respondent No. 5-Society upon the petitioner-Society. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner that the members of the petitioner-society has increased after registration of the respondent No. 5-society. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the registration of respondent No. 5-society is having any adverse effect on the petitioner-society in any manner whatsoever. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons, no interference is required to be made in the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.