JUDGMENT : Sangeeta K. Vishen, J. 1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the captioned writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Issue rule, returnable forthwith. Ms Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.5. 3. The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Registrar, Co-operative Societies modifying the order dated 26.08.2020, whereby, two nominee directors Shri Devrajbhai Khodabhai Sakhiya and Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra have been removed and Shri Mukeshbhai Parshottambhai Kamani and Shri Gauravsinh Mahavirsinh Jadeja came to be nominated. 4. The facts, in brief, are that since the election of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5 was due in the month of August 2020, election programme was declared under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1982”) on 23.07.2020. It is the case of the petitioners that apropos consent given by the respondent no.5 considering the public interest, vide order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies i.e. respondent no.3, the State Government has recommended three members. Being aggrieved, appeal was preferred before the Deputy Secretary. Initially, stay was granted but subsequently, the same came to be vacated by passing an order dated 28.09.2020. 4.1 Complaint was filed by Shri Arvindbhai Raiyani to the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, inter alia, alleging that one of the nominees is not holding the requisite qualification and is ineligible for being nominated as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”). Accepting the complaint, the respondent no.1, modified the order dated 26.08.2020 removing the two names as referred to hereinabove and nominating another two nominees by passing an order dated 28.09.2020. Being aggrieved, that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition. 5. Mr Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that on 26.08.2020, three persons were nominated by the respondent no.1. Being aggrieved, that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition. 5. Mr Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that on 26.08.2020, three persons were nominated by the respondent no.1. It is next submitted that one MLA from the Rajkot had filed a complaint dated 07.09.2020, inter alia, pointing out that Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra does not fulfil the requirement and therefore, he could not have been nominated as the Government nominee. With this, request was made to cancel his nomination. It is submitted that the report dated 08.09.2020 was submitted by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Considering the report, the names of the two nominees were cancelled and another two nominees were appointed as nominee of the Board of Directors. 5.1 It is next submitted that Section 80 of the Act of 1961 provides for power to appoint Government nominee and sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961 provides that where the State Government is of the opinion that having regard to the public interest involved in the operation of a society, it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may nominate its representative on the committee of such society as if the State Government had subscribed to the share capital of the society. It is submitted that therefore, the issue which would arise in the present case, is that what is the public interest involved in the taluka level society and how it is expedient to do so. 5.2 It is further submitted that the reply has been filed by the respondent; however, the reply is silent as to what is the public interest involved. Replies in succession were filed; however, the aspect of public interest was silent and therefore, this Court, was compelled to pass an order directing the State Government to file an affidavit clearly stating the basis of the definite opinion as regards public interest involved in nominating a person to the Managing Committee of the society in question. As a result, affidavit dated 05.07.2023, came to be filed; however, the Court was not satisfied and therefore, another order came to be passed. Hence, affidavit dated 01.08.2023, came to be filed. Also, affidavit dated 02.09.2023, was filed by respondent no.2 justifying the nomination so also the order dated 28.09.2023. As a result, affidavit dated 05.07.2023, came to be filed; however, the Court was not satisfied and therefore, another order came to be passed. Hence, affidavit dated 01.08.2023, came to be filed. Also, affidavit dated 02.09.2023, was filed by respondent no.2 justifying the nomination so also the order dated 28.09.2023. However, a bare perusal of the reply suggest that the element of public interest and why it is expedient to do so is missing. 5.3 While adverting to the aspect of locus of the petitioners to file the writ petition, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Brijarajsinh Hemantsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in 2012 (3) GLR 2704 . It is contended that in view of the observations made in paragraph 8, the petitioners have a locus to file the writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court, has held and observed that since the respresentatives of the Government are sent to the management of the bank, the members of the bank certainly have locus standi in a given case to oppose the same, as ultimately it will have the effect regarding managing the affairs of the bank. It has been held and observed that the directors of the bank are also entitled to challenge the action of the State in connection with sending representatives to the management of the bank and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the action of the State Government simply because the bank itself has not challenge the same. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Bharat Sudambhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 (4) GLR 3200 . Specific contention was raised about the locus standi and this Court, held and observed that the directors have the locus to file the petition. It is therefore submitted that in absence of any public interest involved so also expediency, the order dated 28.09.2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Ms Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4, has submitted that it is the petitioner no.2 who has recommended the appointment of the nominee which fact, is strengthened by the communication dated 26.08.2020 addressed to the Commissioner Co-operation & Registrar. 6. Ms Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4, has submitted that it is the petitioner no.2 who has recommended the appointment of the nominee which fact, is strengthened by the communication dated 26.08.2020 addressed to the Commissioner Co-operation & Registrar. Names were suggested for being nominated and therefore, accepting the request, order dated 26.08.2020 came to be passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Registrar, Co-operative Societies nominating three persons. The said order dated 26.08.2020 was not challenged by the petitioners. Relevant, would be the terms and conditions contained in the order dated 26.08.2020 and one of the conditions, is that State Government reserves the liberty to remove and/or modify the government representative. It is submitted that the Government nominees were changed as, they were not possessing the qualification. Initial order was passed in the month of August 2020 and till September 2020, there was no challenge by the petitioners. In fact, some of the petitioners, more particularly petitioner nos.3, 4, 5 and 7 have extended their consent by passing Circular/Resolution no.1 dated 21.07.2023 and some of them have also filed affidavit expressing their willingness to withdraw the petition. 6.1 It is also submitted that the order has been passed strictly in confirmity with the provisions of the Act of 1961 and bye-laws. Bye-law no.7 provides for constitution of the Managing Committee and bye-law no.29(A)4., provides for the government nominee and therefore, appointment of the nominees was strictly in accordance with the Act of 1961 and bye-laws. 6.2 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Shree Rajkot District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Bhanubhai Labhubhai Mehta reported in 2014 (4) GLR 3325 . It is submitted that the Division Bench, has held that the appointment of the nominees, is based on doctrine of pleasure and the Government will have the power to withdraw the nomination and/or cancel the appointment of the representative. It is submitted that when there was consent accorded by the respondent nos.6 and 7 and the nominations were made accordingly, there does not arise any question of the public interest or the expediency. It is submitted that when there was consent accorded by the respondent nos.6 and 7 and the nominations were made accordingly, there does not arise any question of the public interest or the expediency. Also, the order dated 28.09.2020 itself, contained the condition reserving a liberty in favour of the State Government to cancel or modify the order dated 26.08.2020 and when the said order, was accepted, the respondent and the petitioners, would be bound by the said conditions and therefore, it would be impermissible for them to turn around and challenge the order dated 28.09.2020 raising the ground of public interest and necessity of doing so. Under the circumstances, the petition does not warrant interference and deserves to be dismissed in limine. 7. Mr B. S. Patel, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate for the respondent no.5 has vehemently opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that the contention of the public interest is misplaced and misconceived for, the case is to be supported by the pleadings and the averments made in the writ petition. Oral submissions raising the issue of public interest, would not be permissible. Averments made in the writ petition, no where suggest that public interest was the case of the petitioners. The only contention which can be culled out as regards the public interest, would be paragraph 10 which makes a reference of the recommendation of the three members on 26.08.2020 and the respondent no.5 giving its consent for the same and the appointment. In fact, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that considering the public interest, that the nomination has been made. It is submitted that the only objection which has been raised by the petitioners is discernible from the communication dated 05.09.2020 by the respondent no.5 which states about the change in the nomination but it no where suggest that the appointment may not be affected as there is no public interest involved. Appointment is not in the public interest is no where pleaded and now the challenge, is made. 7.1 It is submitted that the aspect of the consent is not disclosed. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to have disclosed the same. The grievance raised by the petitioners is to continue two nominees who are not inclined to continue and that is how, both Shri Devrajbhai Khodabhai Sakhiya and Dr. 7.1 It is submitted that the aspect of the consent is not disclosed. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to have disclosed the same. The grievance raised by the petitioners is to continue two nominees who are not inclined to continue and that is how, both Shri Devrajbhai Khodabhai Sakhiya and Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra have filed their respective affidavits stating before this Court that they have not challenged the decision of the Government and have accepted the same voluntarily. Once the nominees have accepted the decision of the State Government as to whether it would be open to the petitioners to challenge the said nomination? Besides, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has submitted its report indicating that the two members do not qualify the requirements of the Government Resolution dated 08.04.2004. Also, the said nominees have stated that they are not qualified to continue on the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5. Therefore, persons against whom the order has been passed, are not willing to challenge the same and therefore, the petitioners will not have any locus to challenge the said orders. 7.2 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 . It is submitted that the person seeking equity before this Court, is to come with clean hands. Suppression or non-disclosure, cannot be permitted. The Apex Court, has deprecated the practice of party approaching the Courts with unclean hands. It has been observed that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 7.3 It is submitted that in the writ petition, the allegations were that everything is being done only with a view to tilting the balance. It is thereafter the elections were conducted of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and both have been elected unanimously. Therefore, the contention that the Government nominees have been elected to tilt the majority, does not survive. The respondent no.5 society has accepted the order of the State Government nominating the Government nominees in the public interest. Since the year 1963, the said practice has continued and therefore, the captioned writ petition does not warrant interference. 8. Therefore, the contention that the Government nominees have been elected to tilt the majority, does not survive. The respondent no.5 society has accepted the order of the State Government nominating the Government nominees in the public interest. Since the year 1963, the said practice has continued and therefore, the captioned writ petition does not warrant interference. 8. Mr B. T. Rao, learned advocate in the rejoinder, at the outset, submitted that neither is there any suppression nor non-disclosure on the part of the petitioners. It is submitted that there is a specific averment in the writ petition indicating that respondent no.5 has given the consent and the State Government, has appointed the three members considering the public interest. It is submitted that after the order was passed on 28.09.2020 modifying the earlier order of 26.08.2020, an objection was raised by addressing a letter dated 05.09.2020 to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies indicating that the nominees have been nominated without taking into confidence the respondent no.5 and therefore, there is a challenge to the order dated 28.09.2020. If the order dated 28.09.2020 goes, the order dated 26.08.2020 shall also not remain. It is submitted that the order dated 28.09.2020 is a fresh order which, is substantial in nature and the earlier order of 26.08.2020 would merge in the order dated 28.09.2020. It is submitted that it is only after the writ petition was filed, that manipulation has started. 8.1 It is submitted that the agenda for the first meeting was issued on 06.10.2020 and the meeting was held on 13.10.2020; however, the Chairman, in his personal capacity, cannot write a letter as it was not supported by any Resolution. Only with a view to filling the lacuna, the respondent no.5 has passed a Resolution on 29.07.2023. It is submitted that 12 members have raised objection against passing of any Resolution in the meeting; despite which, the Circular/Resolution has been passed on 14.07.2023 whereby, the respondent no.5 has ratified the nomination made on 26.08.2020. It is submitted that out of 15 members, 12 elected members have opposed the ratification of the Circular/Resolution so also the nomination of Shri Harjibhai K. Ajani. Ignoring the objections, which were on record, the minority members have passed a Resolution portraying it having passed by majority members. It is submitted that out of 15 members, 12 elected members have opposed the ratification of the Circular/Resolution so also the nomination of Shri Harjibhai K. Ajani. Ignoring the objections, which were on record, the minority members have passed a Resolution portraying it having passed by majority members. 8.2 It is submitted that even otherwise, the communications addressed were by the Chairman of the respondent no.5 society in his personal capacity not supported by any Resolution and therefore, the respondents are trying to overreach the Court process. It is submitted that may be some of the petitioners have expressed their willingness not to continue with the writ petition; however, at present, the group of petitioners is having support of 11 members and only 4 are against the filing of the writ petition. 8.3 It is submitted that as many as 4 replies were filed. So far as 3 replies are concerned, they are not on the merits. Since petitioners raised the objection that the reply came to be filed; however, it would be impermissible for the respondent authorities to supply additional grounds which, are not forming part of the decision making process. Subsequent documents, will also have no bearing for, all the documents, are of the year 2023. The State Government is trying to justify the case by relying upon the documents which are subsequent in point of time and therefore, it would be impermissible to consider the said documents. It is submitted that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , will directly apply to the facts of the present case, wherein, it has been held and observed that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons by affidavit or otherwise. It has also been held and observed that otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to the Court on account of the challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. 8.4 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Gujarat State Marketing Co Operative Federation Limited v. State of Gujarat reported in (2004) 3 GLR 2342 . 8.4 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Gujarat State Marketing Co Operative Federation Limited v. State of Gujarat reported in (2004) 3 GLR 2342 . It is submitted that the challenge, was to the validity of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961. The Division Bench, while summarizing has concluded that the appointment of the representatives on the Committee of the society by nomination has a civil consequences and therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be observed while forming the opinion that having regard to the public interest involved in the operation of the society it is necessary or expedient to nominate the representatives. 8.5 While adverting to the aspect of what is public interest and expedient, it is submitted that meaning of public interest and expedient, has been defined in the Law of Lexicon. ‘Expedient’ would mean characterized by suitability, practicality and efficiency in achieving a particular end: fit, proper or advantageous under the circumstances. It is submitted that as per the dictionary meaning, ‘expedient’ would mean useful for affecting a desired result, fit or suitable for the purpose. Therefore, ‘expedient’ (adj.) would mean ‘apt and suitable to the end in view’. Similarly, public interest as defined in Law of Lexicon means something in which the public, community at large has some pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. The expression ‘public interest’, is not capable of precise definition and has not a rigid meaning and is elastic and takes its colours from the statute in which it occurs, the concept of varying with the time and state for society and its needs. 8.6 It is submitted that from the order dated 26.08.2020, it is clear that there is no public interest involved. Merely because the turn over of the society, is a huge and running into crores, that by itself, would not suggest that there is a public interest. The Government has to convey in so many words the reasons, for public interest. 8.7 While dealing with the aspect of expediency, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri and Others reported in (1975) 1 SCC 138 wherein, Apex Court has held and observed that the word ‘expedient’ has several shades of meaning. 8.7 While dealing with the aspect of expediency, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri and Others reported in (1975) 1 SCC 138 wherein, Apex Court has held and observed that the word ‘expedient’ has several shades of meaning. In one dictionary sense, “expedient” means “apt and suitable to the end in view”, “practical and efficient”; “politic”; “profitable”; “advisable”, “fit, proper and suitable to the circumstances of the case”. In another shade, it means a device “characterised by mere utility rather than principle, conducive to special advantage rather than to what is universally right”. 8.8 It is submitted that therefore, the requirements contained in sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961 namely the public interest, is missing not only that, why it is expedient, is also missing. Therefore, the captioned writ petition deserves interference and the action of the respondent State Government in issuing the communication dated 28.09.2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused the documents available on the record. 10. Tersely stated are the facts. Upon expiry of the term of five years, the elections of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5, was declared under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1982 by the Election Officer on 23.07.2020. The respondent no.5 addressed a communication dated 26.08.2020 to the Commissioner and Registrar Cooperation, Co-operative Societies requesting it to nominate three representatives on the Managing Committee of the society. As there was no nomination, the respondent no.5 suggested three names. Accepting the said request, the State Government nominated three persons on the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5 exercising the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961 read with Government Resolution dated 08.04.2004. The said nomination, was on certain terms and conditions and was never the subject matter of challenge and has been accepted by the respondent no.5. 11. It appears that on 07.09.2020, a complaint was filed by Shri Arvindbhai Raiyani to the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, inter alia, stating that one of the nominees does not fulfill the condition for being nominated and therefore, his nomination may be reconsidered and be cancelled. Apropos which, the report was called for and which, accordingly was submitted. 11. It appears that on 07.09.2020, a complaint was filed by Shri Arvindbhai Raiyani to the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, inter alia, stating that one of the nominees does not fulfill the condition for being nominated and therefore, his nomination may be reconsidered and be cancelled. Apropos which, the report was called for and which, accordingly was submitted. On the basis of the said report, the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajkot has submitted a report dated 08.09.2020 to the Joint Registrar (Commerce). Accepting the report, the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajkot has opined that Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra is not qualified for being nominated as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961. Accordingly, after following the procedure, that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has passed an order dated 28.09.2020 modifying the earlier order dated 26.08.2020. By the said order and invoking condition no.3, the nomination of Shri Devrajbhai Khodabhai Sakhiya and Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra were deleted and instead, Shri Mukeshbhai Parshottambhai Kamani and Shri Gauravsinh Mahavirsinh Jadeja were nominated as the representatives of the State Government on the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5. It is this order, which, is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 12. It has been contended that the appointment, is not in the public interest. It is therefore submitted that if the State Government is desirous of exercising the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961, condition precedent is that there should be a public interest involved and it should be necessary or expedient for doing so. It is only upon fulfillment of two conditions namely involvement of the public interest and necessity or expediency so to do, the State Government may nominate its representatives on the Committee. It is also argued that there is no public interest involved and merely because the turn over of the society is huge that by itself cannot be said to be a public interest. In absence of any public interest so also the necessity or expediency, the decision of the State Government dated 28.09.2020 nominating its three representatives, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. As against this, the stand taken by the respondent State is, that the elements of public interest is very much available for, the respondent no.5 society, has around 61 primary societies and has 21,000/- members. 13. As against this, the stand taken by the respondent State is, that the elements of public interest is very much available for, the respondent no.5 society, has around 61 primary societies and has 21,000/- members. Moreover, since the year 1963, the State Government has been nominating its representatives on the Managing Committee of the society and therefore, it is incorrect to suggest that there is no public interest involved. 14. Contention is also raised by the respondent no.5 that there is not a whisper about the concept of the public interest or the requirement of non-fulfilment of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961; when it was never the case of the petitioners. Issue of public interest or necessity or expediency, would be impermissible for the petitioners to raise before this Court for the first time. 15. Pertinently, the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5 on 26.08.2020, addressed a letter to the Commissioner and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, inter alia, stating that presently, the Government nominees are not appointed by the State Government and therefore, as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961, the State Government shall appoint its three representatives. The names were recommended by the respondent no.5 namely Shri Devrajbhai Khodabhai Sakhiya, Shri Bhanubhai Labhubhai Mehta and Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra. Accepting the recommendation, that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies passed an order nominating the persons recommended by the respondent no.5. It is the petitioner no.2 who had addressed a letter to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies seeking appointment of the Government nominees and therefore, now to argue that there is no public interest involved is nothing but an afterthought. 16. As can be seen from the documents, the proposal was made by the respondent no.5 on 26.08.2020 to the Commissioner and Registrar, Co-operative Societies. On the very same day, the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajkot has submitted its proposal dated 26.08.2020 and while exercising the powers flowing from the Government Resolution dated 08.04.2004, that the order has been passed. 16. As can be seen from the documents, the proposal was made by the respondent no.5 on 26.08.2020 to the Commissioner and Registrar, Co-operative Societies. On the very same day, the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajkot has submitted its proposal dated 26.08.2020 and while exercising the powers flowing from the Government Resolution dated 08.04.2004, that the order has been passed. It is difficult to accept that how on one day the consent was submitted, proposal was prepared and the order has been passed, more particularly, when the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961 requires the authorities, to form an opinion having regard to the public interest involved in the operation of a society, as to whether it is necessary or expedient to do so. It is only after formation of the opinion, that the Registrar may nominate its representative on the committee of the society. It is not to suggest that the haste shown in taking the decision would render the decision illegal or bad; however, the speed with which the decision was taken, is raising doubt. Since the order dated 26.08.2020, is not a subject matter of challenge, the issue, is not gone into. 17. As stated hereinabove, after the order was passed by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 26.08.2020, a complaint dated 07.09.2020 came to be filed by one Shri Arvind Raiyani raising an objection against the qualification of Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra. Accepting the said complaint and after calling for the reports, that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies had passed an order dated 28.09.2020 modifying the earlier order dated 26.08.2020, whereby, Shri Mukeshbhai Parshottambhai Kamani and Shri Gauravsinh Mahavirsinh Jadeja came to be replaced in place of Shri Devrajbhai Khodabhai Sakhiya and Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra. The respondent no.5, thereafter on 05.09.2020 has raised an objection stating that without taking in confidence the respondent no.5, that the State Government has modified the initial appointment which, is not in the right earnest and therefore, it requested the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to take necessary steps. 18. In the present case, it is required to be noted that the initial order was passed on 26.08.2020 on the basis of the consent accorded by the Chairman of the respondent no.5. 18. In the present case, it is required to be noted that the initial order was passed on 26.08.2020 on the basis of the consent accorded by the Chairman of the respondent no.5. No objection was raised and therefore, on the basis of the said consent, the State Government has passed an order dated 26.08.2020 in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961 nominating its three representatives. Therefore, the powers have already been exercised. What now the petitioners have sought to challenge is the order dated 28.09.2020 and therefore, when the petitioners have accepted the order dated 26.08.2020, the question which arises for the consideration of this Court is whether it will be permissible for the petitioners to challenge the subsequent order raising the ground of public interest? Answer has to be in negative and more particularly, when the initial order is not under challenge which, is clear from the prayers and read thus: “24. Taking into consideration the above grounds and others that may be urged at the time of hearing, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased: - (A) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure- J), whereby, modified the order dated 26.08.2020 (Annexure-D), which is illegal, erroneous and against the provisions of law, without hearing the society, and in violation of judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench an referred to hereinabove, for the reasons stated in the memo of the petition, in the interest of justice; (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to restrain the persons nominees newly appointed, pursuant to the order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure-J), whereby, modified the order dated 26.08.2020 (Annexure-D) from casting the votes in the elections of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the RALOSANGH, for the reasons stated in the memo of the petition, in the interest of justice; (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the operation, execution and implementation of the order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure-J) whereby, the respondent no.2 modified the order dated 26.08.2020 (Annexure-D), for the reasons stated in the memo of the petition, in the interest of justice;” 19. In support of such prayers, the averments made and grounds raised are thus extracted hereinbelow: “10. It is submitted that, the reason given in the said letter / order, the District Registrar has recommended the case of three members on 26.08.2020 and RALOSANGH has given consent for the same and the government has appointed three members on considering the public interest. 17. It is submitted that, on being recommendation made by the District Registrar and when appeal has been dismissed by the State Government of Shri Arivndbhai Raiyani immediately, on same day, the In-Charge State Registrar Shri Bijal Shah, whose regular posting is Chief Town Planner, Gujarat State has modified the order dated 26.08.2020 and has removed two nominee director Shri Devrajbhai Khodabhai Sakhiya and Shri Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra and nominated Shri Mukeshbhai Parshottambhai Kamani and Shri Gauravsinh Mahavirsinh Jadeja, vide an order dated 28.09.2020. Copy of the order dated 28.09.2020 of In-charge State Registrar Shri Bijal Shah modifying the earlier order dated 26.08.2020 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-J to this Petition. 18. It is submitted that, on 05.10.2020, the RALOSANGH has wrote a letter to the State Registrar regarding nomination of Section 80(2) of the Act. Copy of letter dated 05.10.2020 written by the RALOSANGH to the State Registrar is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-K to this Petition. 19. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the In-charge State Registrar dated 28.09.2020 modifying the order dated 26.08.2020, the petitioners herein beg to prefer this petition on the following amongst other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing of the present petition.” 20. Therefore, the grounds raised are in furtherance of the challenge to the order dated 28.09.2020. Also, if the petitioners or for that matter the respondent no.5 had any objection, immediately, they should have challenged the order dated 26.08.2020 but, they did not do so and could not have done, as it was at their request that the order was passed nominating three representatives. 21. Now, therefore, in view of the nature of challenge being only the order dated 28.09.2020, the scope of examination by this Court is also limited i.e. whether the Registrar, Co-operative Societies could have passed the order changing the nominees unilaterally and solely on the basis of a complaint dated 07.09.2020 and without putting it to the knowledge of the petitioners. 22. 22. At this stage, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Marketing Co Operative Federation Limited v. State of Gujarat (supra) is worth referring to. In paragraph 10, the Division Bench has summarized the conclusion and relevant, would be paragraph (f) by which, it has been held and observed that the appointment of the representatives on the committee of a society by nomination under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 80 has a civil consequences and therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be observed while forming the opinion that having regard to the public interest involved in the operation of the society, it is necessary or expedient to nominate the representatives. For compliance with the principles of natural justice, adequate and meaningful opportunity of hearing has to be given to the society and as a part thereof, the society has to be informed about the grounds on which the opinion as to involvement of public interest in the operation of society was based. As per the said judgment, the element of principles of natural justice, is must. Paragraph 10(f) reads thus: “10 (f) the appointment of representatives on the committee of a society by nomination under the provisions of Section 80 (2) has civil consequences, and, therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be observed while forming the opinion that, having regard to the public interest involved in the operation of the society, it is necessary or expedient to nominate the representatives. For compliance with the principles of natural justice, adequate and meaningful opportunity of hearing has to be given to the society and, as a part thereof, the society has to be informed about the grounds on which the opinion as to involvement of public interest in the operation of the society was based and the necessity or expediency for the nomination had arisen. The guidelines evolved and issued in compliance with the observation in paragraph 79 of the judgment in Amreli District Co.Op. Sale & Purchase Union Ltd. (supra) are also required to be followed while exercising the power and the exercise of power has to be consistent with such guidelines;” 23. The guidelines evolved and issued in compliance with the observation in paragraph 79 of the judgment in Amreli District Co.Op. Sale & Purchase Union Ltd. (supra) are also required to be followed while exercising the power and the exercise of power has to be consistent with such guidelines;” 23. In the present case, nothing has been placed on the record by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to suggest that either the respondent no.5 or for that matter the petitioners, were informed about the change or modification. Though elections were conducted; but elections of Chairman and Vice-Chairman were subsequently conducted on 13.10.2020. Therefore, when the nominations were effected on 28.09.2020, there was no Managing Committee in place with Chairman and Vice Chairman. Therefore, the members i.e. petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to represent. The objection that the petitioners could not have filed the writ petition is also stated to be rejected 24. Similar such issue, was raised in the case of Bharat Sudambhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra) and the co-ordinate Bench, while dealing with the aspect of principles of natural justice,has held thus: “30. Re. : (iii) principles of natural justice : 30.1 As per sub-section (2) of Section 80, after forming of opinion as to the necessity or expediency, having regard to the public interest involved in the operation of a society, so to do, the State Government may nominate its representative on the committee of such Society. Pertinently, the nomination of the representative of the State Government is on the Committee as defined under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act of 1961. Committee means the Managing Committee or other governing body of a Society to which the direction and control of the management of the affairs of the Society is entrusted. The Registrar is obligated to hear the Society and Society acts through its Committee which is elected by its members. As the record suggest notice has been issued to the Chairman and Managing Director who cannot be said to be the Society. The Registrar is obligated to hear the Society and Society acts through its Committee which is elected by its members. As the record suggest notice has been issued to the Chairman and Managing Director who cannot be said to be the Society. 30.2 At the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that in the normal circumstances, perhaps the notice issued to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Society would have been in a right earnest and would have been placed before the Committee members headed by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and the decision would have been taken by all the members during such meeting when, the members would have been at liberty, either to concur with the nomination or to lodge their dissent. In the present case, that eventuality was not available inasmuch as, the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman was yet to take place on 4.9.2020. Further, the Directors had no opportunity either to concur with the decision of the State Government or to oppose the same. The members - directors are there on the Managing Committee not for the sake of being there but, various duties and responsibilities are conferred upon them under the Act and the Bye- laws to perform. The voice of the Directors on the Committee as members is in furtherance of the democratic principle. Had the Committee with Chairman and Vice-Chairman being in place, then in that case, a situation would have been different and a decision could have been taken. 30.3 It is contended on behalf of the State Government that the members are not required to be issued any notice in view of the well settled position as enunciated in the case of Daman Singh (surpa) as well as C.O.D. Chheoki Employees' Co-op. Society Ltd. (supra) wherein, it is held that once a person becomes a member of a Co-operative Society, he loses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute in the Bye-laws. It is also argued that the member must act and speak through the Society or rather, the Society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the Society as a body. There is and cannot be quarrel to such proposition. It is also argued that the member must act and speak through the Society or rather, the Society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the Society as a body. There is and cannot be quarrel to such proposition. However, what is required to be seen is that the notice which was issued to the Society through the Managing Director can be construed as a notice satisfying the requirement of principles of natural justice. 30.4 The notice dated 20.8.2020 was issued by the Registrar and copy whereof was addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director. Supposedly, the Registrar and the District Registrar were aware that though the election of the Society was held, the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman was yet to take place. Necessarily, it means that Chairman was not available to answer the reply and the Managing Director was not authorised to file such a reply as has been indicated by him on 21.8.2020. Therefore, though the notice was issued to the Society/Committee, virtually, there was no say available of the Society/Committee either opposing or supporting the nomination. In essence, such notice was nothing but a paper formality and against the principles of natural justice. 30.5 Besides, when the petitioners approached the Registrar with a request that in absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman, the decision of nominating the representatives on the Committee of the Society may be deferred till 4.9.2020, the Registrar, for the reasons best known to him, proceeded further to pass the order nominating the respondent nos.6 and 7 on the committee without assigning any reason as to why nomination of the representatives of the State Government was imminent and that it cannot wait till the election of Chairman and Vice- Chairman. 30.6 The judgment cited in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra), was in respect of departmental enquiry and the Apex Court, while summarising the earlier judgments, in paragraph 33, has held that the principles are to be not intended to be exhaustive and are evolved keeping in view the context of disciplinary enquiries and orders of punishment imposed by an employer upon the employee. The Apex Court in the connection of disciplinary inquiries, in sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 33, has observed and held that procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. The Apex Court in the connection of disciplinary inquiries, in sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 33, has observed and held that procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under 'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice. 30.7 The judgment in the case of A.S. Motors (supra), the Apex Court had held that rules of natural justice, are not rigid, immutable or embodied rules that may be capable of being put in strait jacket. What the Courts in essence look for in every case where violation of the principles of natural justice is alleged is whether the affected party was given reasonable opportunity to present its case and whether the administrative authority had acted fairly, impartially and reasonably. 30.8 In alternative, it is also argued that there was no obligation to issue notice to the Directors inasmuch as, the notice was issued to the Managing Director of the Society. Judgments in the case of M/s. Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. (supra) and Sarabjit Singh (supra) have been pressed in service to contend that the notice to the Managing Director is construed to be a notice to the Society. The said judgments cannot be made applicable, for, both the judgements were dealing with the provisions and proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court quashed the proceedings concluding that notice under Section 138 was sent to the Managing Director at his office address and the same cannot be construed that the notice was sent to the company itself. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal held that the proceedings were initiated by the appellant against the Managing Director of the company who had signed the cheques and that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, in the case of Sarabjit Singh (supra), the case was with respect to the proceedings under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, in the case of Sarabjit Singh (supra), the case was with respect to the proceedings under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pertinently, the judgements cited cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, considering the fact that the provisions of the Act of 1961 are not in pari materia with the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Even otherwise the apex court in the subsequent judgement, in the case of Aneeta Hada (supra) has held that that notice to the Managing Director is not sufficient and notice to the company is must. In fact, in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.S. Motors (supra) it has been held that the doctrine of audi alteram partem is thus aimed at striking at arbitrariness and want of fair play. Therefore, if the action of the authorities is founded on the touchstone of arbitrariness and the authorities, if have not acted fairly, that would be in violation of principles of natural justice and would be liable to be quashed and set aside. 30.9 Under the circumstances, when the Chairman and Vice- Chairman were not elected of the Committee, considering the peculiar circumstances, the Registrar ought to have issued notice to the members of the Committee inasmuch as, upon the nomination of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 they would assume the office and will have all rights, duties, responsibilities and liabilities, as if they are the members of the Committee as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961. As has been held by this court in the case of Brijrajsinh Hemantsinh Jadeja (supra) sending the representatives of the government, will ultimately, have effect regarding managing the affairs of the Union. As has been held by this court in the case of Brijrajsinh Hemantsinh Jadeja (supra) sending the representatives of the government, will ultimately, have effect regarding managing the affairs of the Union. Therefore, the action of the Registrar is in violation of the principles of natural justice and on this count also, the impugned action deserves to be quashed and set aside.” This Court, has held and observed that when the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were not elected on the Managing Committee, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, ought to have issued a notice to the members of the committee inasmuch as, upon the nomination of the nominees of the State Government, they would have assumed the office and will have all the rights, duties, responsibilities and liabilities as if they are the members of the committee as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961. Hence, the impugned order is bad on the count of violation of principles of natural justice. 25. Besides, after the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies nominating the three members, complaint was filed only against one nominee. Report was submitted by the District Registrar dated 08.09.2020 to the Joint Registrar indicating that Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra was not possessing the requisite qualification. The complaint was against Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra and the report, was only with respect to Dr. Bharatbhai Khodabhai Bogra; however, suddenly and without there being any basis, the change effected is of two nominees. When Ms Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader was confronted, the only reply given was that the order dated 26.08.2020 reserves the liberty to the State Government to change the nomination; however, if the State Government/Registrar, was to change the nomination, the procedure of intimation was required to be followed. Having not done so, the element of arbitrariness is writ large. 26. While justifying the stand of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in passing the order dated 28.09.2020, it has been stated that the recourse, has been taken to the condition no.3 of the order dated 26.08.2020; however, the said condition does not give an unfettered power to the State Government. Principles of fairness and natural justice are required to be observed. No reasons worth the name are offered, even the affidavit does not say anything. Principles of fairness and natural justice are required to be observed. No reasons worth the name are offered, even the affidavit does not say anything. Therefore, what was not there on the file, it could not have been improvised by making the submissions and taking recourse of the conditions contained in the order dated 26.08.2020. In the judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others (supra), Apex Court has held and observed that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of the affidavit or otherwise. Therefore, on this count as well, the action of the respondent is bad and illegal. 27. It is also argued that both the nominees, have not challenged their nomination but the said aspect would be irrelevant. The issue on hand is, the action and the procedure followed while nominating the Government representatives on the Managing Committee of the respondent no.5 society which has to be in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1961. The action does not pass the test of the reasonableness and therefore, is illegal and bad. 28. Contention was also raised by Mr B. S. Patel, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate for respondent no.5 that the petitioners have not come with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts inasmuch as, it was the petitioner no.2 who, has signed the proposal. Notably, in the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners have stated in paragraph 10 thus: “10. It is submitted that, the reason given in the said letter / order, the District Registrar has recommended the case of three members on 26.08.2020 and RALOSANGH has given consent for the same and the government has appointed three members on considering the public interest.” 29. The aspect of consent, has been narrated. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a suppression of material fact. Reference of the said event, was very much there though without any document. The petitioners could have placed the reliance but not having done so by itself, cannot be said that there was a suppression of material fact on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a suppression of material fact. Reference of the said event, was very much there though without any document. The petitioners could have placed the reliance but not having done so by itself, cannot be said that there was a suppression of material fact on the part of the petitioners. Hence, the judgment in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) would not be of any help. Thus, the said contention raised by the respondent no.5 also stands rejected. 30. The judgment cited by Ms Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Shree Rajkot District Cooperative Milk Producers Union v. Bhanubhai Labhubhai Mehta (supra) is with respect to the appointment of the Government representatives and subsequent cancellation at the pleasure of the State Government. In the present case, since the nominees have not challenged the order dated 28.09.2020, the aspect of the appointment being at the pleasure of the Government would not arise and reliance placed is misplaced. 31. In view of the above referred discussion, the order dated 28.09.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition stands partly allowed. No order as to costs. 32. Accordingly, connected civil applications would not survive and are disposed of. 33. At this stage, Ms Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader requests that the operation of this judgment be stayed for four weeks. Mr B. T. Rao, learned advocate has vehemently opposed the said request. The operation of this judgment is stayed for a period of four weeks.