JUDGMENT : Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel with learned advocate Mr. Umang Oza for learned advocate Mr.Chirag B. Patel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayswal waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioners have prayed as under : “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the notice and proceeding in pursuance to the notice dated 28/9/2017 issued by respondent at Annexure-A to this petition. (C) Pending hearing and till final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of show cause notice issued by respondent dated 28/9/2017 at Annexure-A to the petition. (D) Any other relief deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1. The petitioners No.1-Society is the service society only registered under the provision of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act, 1961’) on 11.08.2011. It is the case of the petitioners that after registration of petitioner No.1-Society, the petitioner No.1- Society has maintained common services in JBR Arcade Scheme constructed by the builder and there is no complaint regarding deficiency of any service by the petitioner No.1-Society. It is the case of the petitioners that some dissatisfied occupants, who are also member of petitioner No.1-Society, made malicious complaint against the office bearers of petitioners No.1 society. 3.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1-Society has 72 members and only less than 10 members started to address baseless letters to respondent authority. It is the case of the petitioners that the Managing Committee of petitioner No.1-Society has been elected on 20.09.2017. 3.3. It is the case of the petitioners that the new Managing Committee has taken the charge after the election and the petitioner No.2 is elected as Chairman and the petitioner No.3 is the Secretary of petitioners No.1-Society. The petitioner Nos.5 and 6 have been elected first time as the Managing Committee members on 20.09.2017. It is the case of the petitioners that the earlier Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1-Society had following members. The petitioner Nos.5 and 6 have been elected first time as the Managing Committee members on 20.09.2017. It is the case of the petitioners that the earlier Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1-Society had following members. (1) Ashokbhai Raghuramnbhai Thakkar (2) Jigneshbhai Rasiklal Shah (3) Bhagubhai Gangarambhai Patel (4) Kiritbhai Raghurambhai Thakkar (5) Rajeshbhai Jayantibhai Patel 3.4.It is the case of the petitioners that as per the settled law by order of Court in the case of Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Raiyani and Others versus State of Gujarat and Others, 2007 (3) GLR 2606 , it has been clearly held that the Registrar have got no powers Under Section 81 of the Act, 1961 for removal of New Managing Committee for the alleged default of the previous Managing Committee. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Patel submitted that the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1-Society was elected on 20th September, 2017 for the year 2017-2018 and the impugned show-cause notice dated 28th September, 2017 was issued thereafter with regard to the alleged defaults, which were committed by the previous committee for the period from 2012 to 2017. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in case of Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Raiyani (Supra). 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal submitted that the petitioner should be relegated before the respondent to file a reply to show cause notice on merits and thereafter, respondent would consider the objections raised by the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. It appears that the order of issuance of notice dated 09.10.2017 passed by this Court was challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.1789 of 2017. The Division Bench (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.V.Anjaria and Hon’ble Dr.Justice Ashokkumar C. Joshi) passed the following order on 05.03.2020 : “Heard learned senior advocate Mr.B.S. Patel assisted by learned advocate Mr.P.D. Parmar for the appellants – original petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil B. Trivedi for the respondent – State and its authorities. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal was directed against order dated 09th October, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.18588 of 2017, which order read as under. “Notice returnable on 19.12.2017. Parties shall complete the pleadings on or before 30.11.2017. Direct service is permitted.” 3. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal was directed against order dated 09th October, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.18588 of 2017, which order read as under. “Notice returnable on 19.12.2017. Parties shall complete the pleadings on or before 30.11.2017. Direct service is permitted.” 3. Looking at the challenge in the main Special Civil Application, the original petitioners – appellants herein, invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and challenged show-cause notice dated 28th September, 2017 issued by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Housing), Ahmedabad, under Section 81 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, asking the petitioners to show cause as to why for the grounds stated in the notice, the petitioner society should not be superseded. A writ of prohibition was sought for against the proceedings pursuant to the said notice. This Letters Patent Appeal, when came up before the Court for the first time on 11th October, 2017, the Court granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 4(A) of the Civil Application which was filed along with the Appeal, being Civil Application No.13462 of 2017. In view of the said interim relief granted, further proceedings before the respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice remain stayed. 4. As the Letters Patent Appeal comes up for consideration today, we noticed the aspect that the interim relief granted by the Court as above on 11th October, 2017 has continued for nearly two-and-half years by now. On the other hand, the main petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge, at large awaiting even the completion of pleadings. 5. When the interim relief granted by the Court as above has continued since long till date and the pleadings are also to be filed in the main petition, whereafter it could be considered on its own merits, we consider it as apposite not to go into the merits. We deem it fit to request the learned Single Judge taking up the matters to decide the Special Civil Application on merits after completion of pleadings, giving opportunity to both the sides to put-forth their case. 5.1 Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties in this Appeal assure us that pleadings will be completed within short time. We deem it fit to request the learned Single Judge taking up the matters to decide the Special Civil Application on merits after completion of pleadings, giving opportunity to both the sides to put-forth their case. 5.1 Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties in this Appeal assure us that pleadings will be completed within short time. Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that affidavit-in-reply will be filed within four weeks from today, further pleadings, if any, shall be completed within 10 days of filing of the reply affidavit. 5.2 It will be open for the parties to request the learned Single Judge to fix the hearing of the Special Civil Application once the pleadings are over. 5.3 Interim relief granted on 11th October, 2017 as above shall continue to operate till the learned Single Judge decides the petition. 6. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits, nor have expressed any opinion on the merits on any of the aspects of the controversy. Continuation of stay observed by us in the present order does not have any reflection on merits. 7. This Letters Patent Appeal stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Notice is discharged. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS Both the Civil Applications do not survive in view of disposal of the main Letters Patent Appeal as per the above order.” 7. Thus, the Division Bench has continued the interim-relief, granted on 11th October, 2017, till this petition is disposed of. 8. Considering the facts of the case that the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are the newly elected members of the petitioner No.1-Society for the year 2017-2018 on 20th September, 2017 which is prior to the date of issuance of notice on 28th September, 2017, the decision of this Court in case of Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Raiyani (Supra) would squarely apply to the issue of exercise of powers by the respondent under Section 81 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 as in the said judgment, it has been held as under : “9. On a plain perusal of the aforesaid three charges, it becomes apparent that the present Managing Committee which has come into existence only on 5-7-2006 was never involved in any of the decision making process, for which the charges are levelled in the impugned notice. On a plain perusal of the aforesaid three charges, it becomes apparent that the present Managing Committee which has come into existence only on 5-7-2006 was never involved in any of the decision making process, for which the charges are levelled in the impugned notice. Nor is the impugned notice based on failure to take remedial measures under Section 85 of the Act as pleaded by the learned A.G.P. Therefore, even if one proceeds on the footing that the charges have some prima facie basis, there is no material to link the present Managing Committee for the so-called defaults. It is well settled that the authority in exercise of its jurisdiction has to have some material in its possession so as to prima facie establish existence of jurisdictional facts which would operate as a live link between the charges levelled and the person charged with such charges. In other words, even for the purposes of arriving at a prima facie opinion that the persons charged with have committed certain defaults, there must be some material in existence with the authority before the authority can exercise such jurisdiction. In the present case, such material to link the present Managing Committee with the defaults for which it is charged with is singularly missing. Hence, in absence of the jurisdictional facts the action of respondent No. 2-Registrar in issuing impugned show-cause notice is bad in law being without jurisdiction. 10. The concept of a Committee denotes that a group of people come together to discuss and arrive at a collective decision. When the persons who constitute the Committee, which is charged with having committed certain defaults, are different, either all or some of them, it cannot be stated that such persons were party to the collective decision taken at a point of time when such persons were not constituting the Committee which took the decision which is considered to be the genesis of the so-called default. Thus, on any count, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction.” 9. In the facts of the case also, there is nothing on record to link the present Managing Committee for the so called defaults, in view of the fact that the impugned show-cause notice refers to the four defaults pertaining to the removal of audit objections up to 31.03.2015. Thus, on any count, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction.” 9. In the facts of the case also, there is nothing on record to link the present Managing Committee for the so called defaults, in view of the fact that the impugned show-cause notice refers to the four defaults pertaining to the removal of audit objections up to 31.03.2015. The second default is with regard to the breach of bye-law No.4(1) pertaining to the tenants/ownership rights in the properties of the petitioner No.1-Society by admitting the members on 31.03.2017 in whose favour B.U. permission is not granted. The third default is with regard to the breach of bye-law No.39(4) with regard to the preparation of the financial results and failure to serve the copies of the agenda of the meetings upon the members. The forth default is with regard to not serving of notice before 14 days as per the bye-law No.26. Moreover, two other defaults which are mentioned in the show-cause notice pertains to not furnishing the proceedings of the Annual General Meeting with consent of all the members and to do the repairing works of the commercial units of the members of the petitioner No.1-Society, resulting into breach of bye-law No.2(2). 10. The above defaults are without any live link between the persons charged with such defaults inasmuch as even on the bare perusal of such defaults, there is no material in existence which is referred to in the impugned show-cause notice so as to exercise jurisdiction to issue show cause notice under Section 81 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Therefore, as held by this Court in case of Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Raiyani (Supra), there is no material to link the present Managing Committee with the defaults for which it is charged and hence, in absence of the jurisdictional facts, the action of respondent-Registrar in issuing the impugned show-cause notice is not tenable in law being without jurisdiction. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly, allowed. The impugned show-cause notice dated 28th September, 2017 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.