JUDGMENT : (Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.) Since the issue raised in all the captioned writ petitions is common, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common oral judgment. 2. By these petitions, the petitioner union has prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders, all dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Agriculture, Farmers’ Welfare and Co-operation Department (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent no.1”) so also orders, all dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies refusing to grant permission under the provisions of Section 71 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”). 3. The issue revolves around the previous sanction of the Registrar under the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1961. According to the petitioner union, it being a marketing society, previous sanction was not necessitated considering the fact that the provisions of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 would not attract the transactions entered into by the petitioner union. As against this, while refusing the request of the petitioner union for previous sanction, the stand taken by the respondent authorities, is that the Section contemplates previous sanction and not a post facto sanction. The said refusal, has given rise to the filing of the captioned writ petitions. 4. Perceptibly, almost 15 transactions have been entered into by the petitioner union for the period ranging from the year 1981 to 2019. Details whereof, are indicated in the Resolution no.3 dated 24.12.2019 passed by the petitioner union and produced on the record (page 51 of Special Civil Application no.15604 of 2022). Since there were 15 transactions, 15 writ petitions have been filed. As aforesaid, issue involved in all the writ petitions is common barring minor variation in factual aspects i.e. the details of the transactions. Thus, facts are derived from Special Civil Application no.15604 of 2022 and are set out hereinbelow: 4.1 The petitioner union is a federal society registered under the provisions of the Act of 1961 with area of operation extended to the Districts namely Navsari, Valsad and Dang. First plant of the petitioner union was established in the year 1981, and thereafter other and 1105 primary Co-operative Societies, are its members. First plant of the petitioner union was established in the year 1981, and thereafter other and 1105 primary Co-operative Societies, are its members. It is also the case of the petitioner union that it is procuring 8.5 lakh liters of milk from the primary level milk producing societies every day. Petitioner union processes the milk into different products namely milk pouches, butter, ghee, paneer, curd, butter milk, ice-cream etc. and sells it in the open market through apex society known as Gujarat State Co-operative Milk Federation in the brand name of ‘AMUL’. The petitioner union fetches high price of the milk produced by the milk producers and tries to improve the life of poor and tribal farmers residing in distant and tribal areas. 4.2 The petitioner union, since the year 1981 till date, had purchased various parcels of land for the purpose of constructing the plant or expanding the project. Details of the investments made from the year 1981 to 2019, are indicated in the Resolution no.3 dated 24.12.2019 passed by the petitioner union and produced on the record (page 51 of Special Civil Application no.15604 of 2022). According to the petitioner union, in the year 2014-2015, audit took place and audit query was raised by Special Auditor and it was pointed out that no permission has been procured under the provision of Section 71 of the Act of 1961. Thereafter, in the year 2018, the petitioner union had purchased another parcel of land and therefore, submitted an application dated 31.12.2019 to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, seeking sanction under the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1961. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies i.e. respondent no.2 passed an order rejecting the application on the ground that request for sanction has been made at a belated stage and the request for permission with retrospective effect, cannot be accepted. 4.3 Being aggrieved, the petitioner union preferred revision application before the respondent no.1 i.e. the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Agriculture, Farmers’ Welfare & Co-operation Department and after hearing the parties, an order dated 12.05.2022, came to be passed rejecting the revision application and confirming the order dated 15.01.2021. Being aggrieved, that the petitioner union has preferred the captioned writ petitions. 5. 4.3 Being aggrieved, the petitioner union preferred revision application before the respondent no.1 i.e. the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Agriculture, Farmers’ Welfare & Co-operation Department and after hearing the parties, an order dated 12.05.2022, came to be passed rejecting the revision application and confirming the order dated 15.01.2021. Being aggrieved, that the petitioner union has preferred the captioned writ petitions. 5. Mr V. C. Vaghela, learned advocate with Mr Dilip B. Rana, learned advocate for the petitioner union submitted that clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71, was introduced in the year 2008 and the Statement of Objects and Reasons, suggest that the same, is meant and restricted only to the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and not the petitioner union who is a marketing society. Clearly, the Government of India, based on Vaidyanathan Committees Report, has announced revival package for co-operative societies through NABARD. As per the package, agricultural credit sectors i.e. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies, Central Co-operative Banks and State Co-operative Banks, were to get the benefit for compensating the losses in their balance sheet. Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the State Government and Central Government on certain terms and conditions. Therefore, as per the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it is clear that the focus, inter alia, was on Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies. All the amendments were in connection with the said societies and therefore, operation of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 and more particularly clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 would be restricted only to Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and not the petitioner union. 5.1 It is submitted that the Legislature, thought it fit to amend the provisions of Act of 1961 and various important amendments, have been reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. Amongst others, one is allowing the freedom for investments to be made by co-operative societies and permitting them to invest funds, subject to the guidelines as may be prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. The said clause, is with respect to the funds to be invested by the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and others but not the petitioner union. It is submitted that the functions of Co-operative Credit Structure Society is to advance credit, provide loans and finance facilities to its members. The said clause, is with respect to the funds to be invested by the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and others but not the petitioner union. It is submitted that the functions of Co-operative Credit Structure Society is to advance credit, provide loans and finance facilities to its members. Whereas, function of the petitioner union is to procure milk from the primary milk co-operative societies, to process and sell it in the open market in the brand name of ‘AMUL’. It is submitted that by this process, the petitioner union fetches higher price, provides a platform to the members who belong to distant and tribal areas. 5.2 It is submitted that in the year 2014-2015, audit query was raised by the Special Auditor pointing out that no permission is obtained and therefore, in the year 2019, since the petitioner union was to construct the plant, sought the permission for the investment, which were made during the period from the year 1981 to 2019. It is submitted that filing of the application seeking previous sanction, was under mistaken belief. Considering the language contained in clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961, the petitioner union is not obliged to take any permission. 5.3 It is next submitted that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies without offering any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner union, has rejected the proposal on the ground that post facto permission cannot be granted. It is submitted that the revision application filed, has also been rejected on erroneous premise i.e. no post facto permission can be granted. It is submitted that the ground which has weighed with the respondent no.1, would be erroneous considering the fact that no previous sanction is required. It is submitted that the said contention is strengthened by the communication dated 14.10.1999 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies whereby, it has been stated that considering the provisions of Rule 29 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1965”), no permission is required for the development of the project or for the expansion of the project. Though there was a favourable opinion given, disregarding the said opinion, issue has been decided against the petitioner union. Once there is a stand taken by the Registrar that no permission is required, the petitioner union was not under any obligation to seek any permission. Though there was a favourable opinion given, disregarding the said opinion, issue has been decided against the petitioner union. Once there is a stand taken by the Registrar that no permission is required, the petitioner union was not under any obligation to seek any permission. 5.4 It is submitted that before this Court in identical case of Bhavnagar Jilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. v. State of Gujarat reported in 2022 LawSuit(Guj) 6790, when the Court found that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner therein, remanded the matter, quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the authorities with a further direction to provide opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that in the present case, the order dated 15.01.2021 has been passed without hearing the petitioner union and therefore, on this ground alone, it deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remitted to the respondent authority to decide it afresh. 5.5 It is submitted that assuming that the petitioner union was under an obligation to obtain the permission; however, provision of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 was introduced for the first time w.e.f. 08.10.2007 and therefore, if at all the permission, was required to be obtained, it would be restricted to the investment made after the year 2007 and not prior thereto. The request of the petitioner union seeking previous sanction for the transactions made prior to year 2007, has also been rejected. It is therefore urged that the order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies i.e. respondent no.2 so also the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) i.e. respondent no.1, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Ms Nidhi Vyas, Mr Meet Thakkar, Mr Niraj Sharma and Ms Krushita D. Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleaders while making submissions in the respective writ petitions have opposed the same, supporting the impugned orders. It is submitted that there lies a fallacy on the part of the petitioner union in contending that no previous sanction is required. In fact, petitioner union is a society and is governed by the provisions of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961. It is submitted that there lies a fallacy on the part of the petitioner union in contending that no previous sanction is required. In fact, petitioner union is a society and is governed by the provisions of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961. It is submitted that it is only when the audit query was raised, that an application was filed by the petitioner union; however, in absence of any provision for grant of post facto sanction, both the authorities have passed the orders rejecting the application refusing the request for grant permission. It is submitted that clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 contains the mandate of previous sanction of the Registrar when any investment, is to be made in any land or building and when there was no previous sanction obtained, no error can be said to have been committed by the authorities in rejecting the application of the petitioner union. It is therefore urged that the captioned writ petitions do not deserve to be interfered with. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the documents made available on the record. 8. The facts are already set out in the preceding paragraph; however, brief reference at this stage would be relevant. The petitioner union is a society registered under the provisions of the Act of 1961. Discernibly, the primary level milk producing society procures the milk which in turn, is supplied to the petitioner union which, processes the milk into different products namely milk pouches, butter, ghee, curd etc. It is the case of the petitioner union that it fetches high price of the milk produced by the milk producers and tries to improve the life of poor and tribal farmers residing in the distant and tribal areas. The petitioner union had established its first plant in the year 1981 which was constructed at Alipur in Navsari District. It is thereafter, other plants were established in other Districts and also in the State of Maharashtra. The details whereof, are available on the record of the writ petitions. 9. It so happened that in the year 2014-2015, there was an audit query raised by the Special Auditor pointing out that the land purchased at Dhulia, Maharashtra, was without obtaining permission. The petitioner union thereafter, has purchased another parcel of land at Alipur-Degam. The details whereof, are available on the record of the writ petitions. 9. It so happened that in the year 2014-2015, there was an audit query raised by the Special Auditor pointing out that the land purchased at Dhulia, Maharashtra, was without obtaining permission. The petitioner union thereafter, has purchased another parcel of land at Alipur-Degam. After following necessary steps, that in the year 2018, a Resolution was passed in the Executive Board Meeting to finalize the investment of purchasing the land situated at Alipur-Degam, Taluka Jetpur, District Navsari, as a result whereof, a letter dated 31.12.2019 was addressed to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Subsequent thereto, there appears to be another Resolution no.3(2) dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Executive Committee of the petitioner union resolving to submit a fresh proposal for approval under Section 71 of the Act of 1961 to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The said Resolution reflects the list of investments made by the petitioner union together with the expenses and the accounts. 10. Apropos the letter dated 15.01.2020 of the petitioner union, the District Registrar, Navsari has addressed a letter dated 07.02.2020 to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gandhinagar. The District Registrar, Navsari considering the investment made by the petitioner union, noted that the petitioner union had missed the procedure as required under the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1961; however, there is a huge investment made by the petitioner union and is functional since last more than 20 years. The District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Navsari was also of the opinion that the petitioner union, has earned profit and in the interest of the members of the society and with a caution to the petitioner union that it may not commit said mistake in future, sanction be granted with retrospective effect. With this, the said proposal was made to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gandhinagar who, passed an order dated 15.01.2021 rejecting the request of the petitioner union to grant previous sanction. 11. The petitioner union, being aggrieved, challenged the said orders before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Agriculture, Farmers’ Welfare & Co-operation Department i.e. respondent no.1 by filing revision applications raising various contentions which came to be rejected vide order dated 12.05.2022. 11. The petitioner union, being aggrieved, challenged the said orders before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Agriculture, Farmers’ Welfare & Co-operation Department i.e. respondent no.1 by filing revision applications raising various contentions which came to be rejected vide order dated 12.05.2022. Respondent no.1 was of the opinion that considering the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 with sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965, it is clear that the petitioner union has not obtained the previous sanction and therefore, in absence of any previous sanction, the orders of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies do not deserve to be interfered with. 12. The petitioner union has raised various contentions and gist whereof, is as under: (i) That Resolution no.3 (2) dated 24.12.2019 has been passed by the Executive Committee, resolving to seek previous sanction for the investment made for the period ranging from the year 1981 to 2019; (ii) That there was a bonafide procedural lapse in not following the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1961; however, considering the project and the benefit arising out of the project and for the purpose of the development of the petitioner union and the farmer members, that the permission should have been granted. (iii) That in the letter dated 14.10.1999 of the Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies it has been pointed out that no permission is required under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965 for the purpose of establishing the project or expansion of the project and therefore, no sanction was required. (iv) That application ought to have been granted as per the clarification provided by the District Registrar vide its letter dated 07.02.2020. That even the District Registrar, Navsari has recommended to condone the lapse and to grant the permission retrospectively as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1961. (v) That there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner union. With this, the request was made to quash and set aside the order dated 15.01.2021 and to allow the revision applications. 13. (v) That there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner union. With this, the request was made to quash and set aside the order dated 15.01.2021 and to allow the revision applications. 13. The respondent no.1, considering the remarks submitted by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, inter alia, concluded that the investment of the funds by the societies is permissible as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 read with Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965; however, where the money in such a fund is insufficient for the purpose or where the society has not established such fund, previous sanction of the Registrar is must. Therefore, previous sanction as contained in Section 71 of the Act of 1961 is not a formal approval. Permission is to be granted after considering the aspect of established building fund. The respondent no.1 also considered the contents of the letter dated 14.10.1999 issued by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and observed that previous sanction is must as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 read with clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965. Therefore, letter dated 14.10.1999 would not be of any help to the petitioner union. With this, the respondent no.1 rejected the applications on the ground that, there cannot be a post facto permission and confirmed the order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gandhinagar. 14. At this stage, some of the provisions viz. definition of the term “society” and Section 71 of the Act of 1961 are worth referring to: “2 (19) “society” - a co-operative society registered, or deemed to be registered, under the Act. 71. Investment of Funds: (1) A society may invest, or deposits its fund,— (a) in a Central Bank, or the State Co-operative 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 Co-operative 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.” The term “society” means a co-operative society registered, or deemed to be registered, under the Act therefore, society including the petitioner union would be covered within the definition of term “society” which aspect has been admitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner. 15. Notably, sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 provides that society may invest or deposit its fund as per the clauses enumerated therein. Clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 provides for investment of fund in any land or building. Clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 provides for investment or deposit of its fund in any land or building. Clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 provides for investment of fund in any land or building. Clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 provides for investment or deposit of its fund in any land or building. Sub-clause (ii) of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961, provides for previous sanction of the Registrar, where the money in the fund is insufficient or where a society has not established the fund. Therefore, sub-clause (ii) of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 clearly provides for the previous sanction of the Registrar, inter alia, where the society has not established a fund. Previous sanction, is a prerequisite to the investment of funds by the society, which facilitates the Registrar to examine, inter alia, whether the society has established such fund and if it is found that the said requirement, is not fulfilled, the Registrar may refuse the request. In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner union, has fairly conceded that the petitioner union has not established the fund. Moreover, the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 states that Registrar shall endeavour to decide the question as to previous sanction be given or not. Hence, power available with the Registrar is to grant previous sanction. There is no provision validating the transaction or granting post facto sanction. 16. Relevant would also be the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965 which provides that with the previous sanction of the Registrar, any society may invest its funds or a portion thereof in the purchase or leasing of land or buildings and in the construction of buildings. Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965 reads thus: “29. Investment of Funds.- (1) With the previous sanction of the Registrar any society may invest its funds or a portion thereof [(a) [***] (b) in loans raised by a local authority in the State under the authority of the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1914 (IX of 1914). Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965 reads thus: “29. Investment of Funds.- (1) With the previous sanction of the Registrar any society may invest its funds or a portion thereof [(a) [***] (b) in loans raised by a local authority in the State under the authority of the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1914 (IX of 1914). (c) in the purchase or leasing of land or buildings, and in the construction of buildings: Provided that the purchase of such land or the construction of such building is likely to be advantageous to the society in the conduct of its business, (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), an urban co-operative bank- (a) which has a paid up share capital of not less than Rs. 50,000, and a reserve fund of not less than Rs. 50,000. (b) which has completed ten years from the date of its registration, and (c) which is classed A or B at the last audit made under Section 84, may invest its surplus funds in such shares or debentures of any company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as may be approved by the Registrar.” 17. Therefore, what the above referred provisions contemplate is a previous sanction of the Registrar and not the post facto sanction. In absence of any provisions pointed out, it is difficult to fathom as to how it can be said that the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the respondent no.1 is erroneous or deserves interference. 18. Apart from the above contentions, the learned advocate for the petitioner union has made additional submissions which were not forming part of the proceedings before the authorities below. Raising of additional submissions as such would be impermissible; since they are raised, this Court, deems it appropriate to consider the same. 19. It is submitted that considering the Statement of Objects and Reasons so also the provisions of the Act of 1961, applicability is restricted only to the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and not the petitioner union. Pertinently, clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961, uses the word “society” and the term “society” is defined as per sub-section (19) of Section 2 of the Act of 1961, which means a co-operative society registered, or deemed to be registered, under the Act. Pertinently, clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961, uses the word “society” and the term “society” is defined as per sub-section (19) of Section 2 of the Act of 1961, which means a co-operative society registered, or deemed to be registered, under the Act. Therefore, as per the definition any co-operative societies registered or deemed to be registered would fall within the provisions of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961. Mr V. C. Vaghela, learned advocate has fairly conceded before this Court that the petitioner union is a society and would be covered within the definition of the term “society”. However, attempt is made to suggest that the petitioner union would not be covered as the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961, covers only Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and not the petitioner union. The said contention does not deserve to be accepted inasmuch as, the legislature has in its wisdom used the word “society” which is defined under the definition clause to mean a co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Act and therefore, the petitioner union clearly would be covered under the said provision. Nothing has been pointed out to suggest contrary to the aforesaid provision and therefore, the contention is hereby rejected. 20. It is also argued before this Court that provisions of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 has been introduced with effect from 08.10.2007 and therefore, would not apply to the investment made prior to the year 2007. However, the fact remains that even prior to the insertion of the said provision, Rule 29 of Rules of 1965 was there on the statute book which also provides for previous sanction of the Registrar. Perceptibly, the petitioner union accepting the provisions of law as it stand, has passed a Resolution no.3 (2) dated 24.12.2019 resolving to take previous sanction under the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1961. True, the understanding, would not bind the party but the fact remains that Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965 also envisages the previous sanction of the Registrar. Therefore, said contention is also untenable and is rejected. 21. True, the understanding, would not bind the party but the fact remains that Rule 29 of the Rules of 1965 also envisages the previous sanction of the Registrar. Therefore, said contention is also untenable and is rejected. 21. Contention is also raised that the order has been passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies without hearing the petitioner union and therefore, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Discernibly, against the order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies revision applications have been filed raising all the available contentions, which have been recorded in the preceding paragraph. After considering the contention raised and para-wise remarks offered by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, that the order has been passed. Before the respondent no.1, the petitioner union had full opportunity to make submissions which accordingly were made and has been dealt with and therefore, the said contention does not deserve acceptance and is hereby rejected. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioner union has been unable to point out the prejudice caused to it. In absence of any prejudice suffered, the said contention cannot be accepted so also the judgment of this Court cited in the case of Bhavnagar Jilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (supra). Sufficient opportunity was made available to the petitioner union and it is only thereafter that the revision applications have been decided. Once the petitioner union was equipped with sufficient opportunity, it cannot be said that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner union. More particularly, when there is not a whisper about the prejudice suffered by the petitioner union. 22. In view of the above, the captioned writ petitions do not merit acceptance and are hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs. Order in Civil Applications (for Joining Party): 1. Mr Dipan Desai, learned advocate has filed applications in the respective writ petitions, on behalf of one of the milk producers who deposits the milk to its society which, in turn, deposits the milk with the petitioner no.1 union, for being impleaded as a party respondent. 2. In view of the dismissal of the captioned writ petitions, the civil applications for joining party do not survive and are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.