ORDER : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant, Mr. B.S. Patel, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. C.B. Patel for respondent No.4 and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned APP appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. The present petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a. Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow the present petition. b. Your lordships may be pleased to hold, declare and direct that, the voters list (Annexure K) prepared by Respondent No. 4 is contrary to and is inconsistent with statutory provisions i.e. Section 115D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and is illegal, ineffective and non-operative. c. Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the communication being No. VaHT/G-1/114 to 115/2024 dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure-D) being vague and contrary and inconsistent to the Section - 115D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. d. Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set-aside the byelaws No. 44 (1) and election rules – Rule 2(f) and other related rules of the Respondent No.4 - Bank to the extent the said rules are in conflict with Section 115D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [Annexure - L (Colly)]. e. Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the voters list prepared by Respondent No. 4 Bank (Annexure-K) to the extent the said list is contrary to and inconsistent with the Section 115D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. f. Your lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to prepare the list of voters afresh for the upcoming Election of the Managing Committee of the Respondent No. 4 - Bank for the year July, 2024 to July, 2029 as provided and in accordance with Section 115D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and notify the same well in advance in accordance with law. g. Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of SCA the operation, implementation and execution of the voters list of the Respondent No. 4 Bank (Annexure -K) may please be stayed. g. Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of SCA the operation, implementation and execution of the voters list of the Respondent No. 4 Bank (Annexure -K) may please be stayed. h. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to prepare the list of voters afresh for the upcoming Election of the Managing Committee of the Respondent No. 4 - Bank for the year July, 2024 to July, 2029 as provided and in accordance with Section 115D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and notify the same well in advance in accordance with law. i. Any other appropriate relief deem just, fit and proper may please be granted.” 3. The petitioner herein is the Member of the Managing Committee of respondent No.4 – Bank having been elected for terms of 5 years commencing from 15.09.2019 to 14.09.2024. The respondent No.4 is an Urban Co-operative Bank as a society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and doing the business of Banking, as defined in Clause (b) of Section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The petitioner herein has approached this Court for direction that the voters list which is Annexure – K prepared by the respondent No.4 is contrary to and is inconsistent with statutory provisions i.e. Section 115D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein has further challenged the communication duly produced at page 24 Annexure – D dated 08.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 is District Registrar, the same being vague, contrary and inconsistent to the Section 115D of the Act. 4. Mr. Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, upon instructions, does not press prayer 18-D whereby the petitioner herein has prayed to quash and set-aside the bye-law No.44(1) and election rules – Rule 2(f) and other related rules of the respondent No.4 – Bank to the extent that they are inconsistent and inconflict with Section 115D of the Act. 4.1. Mr. Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the bye-law No.44(1) of the respondent No.4 is contrary to Section 115D of the Act. 4.1. Mr. Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the bye-law No.44(1) of the respondent No.4 is contrary to Section 115D of the Act. By virtue of said bye-law, which came to be amended on 23.01.2021 duly approved by the Registrar Co-operative Societies on 11.08.2021 which provides any member of the Bank who is enrolled as a member / who is member on record in the accounting year, in which the election of the Committee Members takes place, can vote in the election, Hence, as per the election rules / bye-law, a member who is enrolled upto 31.12.2023 can be a voter for the election of Managing Committee of the respondent No.4 – Bank for the terms from July, 2024 to July 2029 – 5 years. 4.2 It is submitted that the election rules of the respondent No.4 – Bank are violation and contrary to the Statutory provision i.e. Section 115D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. 4.3 It is submitted that the petitioner addressed communication to the respondent No.4 on 25.06.2024 to provide the copy of reply of the letter tendered by the respondent No.4 – Bank to the State Registrar, Co-operative Societies in response to the application dated 30.03.2024 made by the petitioner to the respondent No.4 – Bank as well as to the State Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gandhinagar. In response to thereto the respondent No.4 – Bank by communication dated 25.06.2024 provided the copy of the reply given by the respondent No.4 – Bank to the Assistant Registrar (Audit), Co-operative Societies, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar dated 15.06.2024. 4.4 It is submitted that on reading the said reply, it reveals that the bank is aware of that, the bye-laws amended by the Bank are inconsistent to Section 115(D) of the Act and the copy of the same duly produced at Annexure - D. It is submitted that in case of any conflict between bye-laws of the bank and statutory provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, bye-laws of the society cannot be permitted to prevail over the statutory provisions. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkot District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2015 (SC) 489 . In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the provisional voters list duly produced at Annexure-K be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkot District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2015 (SC) 489 . In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the provisional voters list duly produced at Annexure-K be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. B.S. Patel, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. C.B. Patel, learned advocate for respondent No.4, relied upon the affidavit-in-reply duly produced at page 1273. 5.1 It is submitted that the present petition is filed suppressing material facts that the petitioner had challenged the election of the respondent No.4 – Bank by preferring the Special Civil Application No.7742 of 2021, which was dismissed by order dated 03.10.2023. 5.2 It is submitted that the said bye-law, which is challenged by the petitioner herein i.e. bye-law No.44 is approved by the respondent – State on 23.01.2021 and the same has been noted in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 28.09.2021 in which the petitioner was also present. The aforesaid aspect is also noted and stated by the petitioner in the petition. It is submitted that the voters list, which is prepared by the respondent No.4 is a provisional voters’ list and can be finalized only after inviting objections by the Election Office. However with a view to avoid availing of the alternative remedy of raising objections before the Election Officer, the present petition in view of the aforesaid deserves to be dismissed. 5.3 It is submitted that the respondent No.4 - Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. 5.4 It is submitted that the petitioner is challenging the said amendment of the bye-law No.44 for which alternative remedy is available under Section 153 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 by preferring an Appeal as provided under the Act. 5.5 It is submitted that the petitioner herein is the Ex-chairman of the respondent No.4 and would be aware with respect to the fact that any proceedings with respect to election can be challenged under Section 96 of the Act. It is lastly submitted that the present petition is premature and the same is required to be dismissed. 6. In rejoinder, Mr. It is lastly submitted that the present petition is premature and the same is required to be dismissed. 6. In rejoinder, Mr. Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has vehemently objected to the aforesaid bye-laws from time to time. Mr. Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied on the agenda, which is duly produced at page No.1379 Annexure-Q. It is submitted that the agenda is very vague with respect to the amendment bye-law No.44. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not accepted the said, though the petitioner was present in the meeting. 7. Mr. Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied in minutes of meeting and further submitted that the petitioner has raised the objection at that relevant point of time also and wherein the petitioner did not accept the said bye-law. At page 1281, the name of the petitioner figured at item No.7, wherein, the petitioner has stated that none of the papers are supplied to the petitioner herein and further submitted that on 28.09.2021 on the even date filed objection that the documents, as prayed for, were not supplied to the petitioner herein. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the prayers in the petition, as prayed for, be granted. It is also submitted that only apprehension is that upon the petitioner is approaching the Election Office, if the result could be adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner would have to challenge the same before the learned Board of Nominees and no other remedy available to the petitioner, would be rendered remedyless. 8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner has filed in the present petition with respect to voters’ list i.e. preliminary voters’ list prepared by the respondent No.4 and the communication dated 08.04.2024 issued by the respondent – State, whereby, the respondent – State has asked the respondent No.4 – Bank to conduct the election in accordance with law and as per the bye-laws of the election which reads as under :- “Submission of Mr. Yatish G. Desai, Director, Shree Gondal Naagrik Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gondal, dated 30/03/2024 with regard to the aforesaid subject and reference, addressed to you, is attached herewith. Pursuant to the submission of Mr. Yatish G. Desai, Director, Shree Gondal Naagrik Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gondal, dated 30/03/2024 with regard to the aforesaid subject and reference, addressed to you, is attached herewith. Pursuant to the submission of Mr. Desai, it is to state that the upcoming election of the Bank is to be conducted in accordance with the Co-operative Act and the authorized Election/By-laws of the banks. The same shall be noted”. The aforesaid communication, in the opinion of this Court, requires no interference. 9. The prayers, as prayed for, by the petitioner against the respondent – Bank as such would not be maintainable in view of settled position of law, writ is not maintainable against Co-operative Society, which is not a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India in line with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court reported in (2013) 16 SCC 82. 10. If the petitioner were to file objections before the Election Officer and the same be considered in according with Section 115D. In the interest of justice, in line with the ratio laid down in AIR 2015 (SC) 489 . This Court has otherwise not opined on the merits of the matter. In view of above, present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid facts.