Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Nathubhai Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat on 8 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13199 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================
RAMESHBHAI NATHUBHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR PK JANI SR ADVOCATE WITH MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GK VIRK GP ASSISTED BY MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI WITH MR NIKUNJ
KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR ANSIN DESAI SR. ADVOCATE WITH VENU H NANAVATY(7458) for
the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 08/05/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Mr.Kanara, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for respondents No.1 and 2, Mr.Desai, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.3 and Ms.Nanavaty, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.4.
Page 1 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 [hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"] seeking the following reliefs:-
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to remove respondent No.4 as Director and Chairman of Gujarat State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd (respondent No.3) by holding respondent No.4 to be ineligible as per Section 74(1A)(ii) and other provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition of a writ in the nature of prohibition commanding respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat and respondent No.2 - Registrar of Cooperative Societies to see that respondent No.4 is restrained from functioning as the Chairman of the respondent No.3 - Bank.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent No.4 from functioning as Director and Chairman of Gujarat State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to restrain the respondent No.4 from carrying out any function, including taking any policy decision as Chairman of the respondent No.4 - Bank.
(E) Any other and further relief may be granted in the interest of justice.
FACTS:
4. Brief facts of the present case are, in nutshell, as under:-
Page 2 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 4.1 The respondent no.3 Bank came to be incorporated. It was termed as "Land Mortgage Bank" because its only activity was with respect to the mortgage finance. In 1964, the Gujarat Act 24 of 1964 came to be passed, by which, the words "Land Mortgage Bank" were substituted by the words "Land Development Bank". That the State Legislature passed an Act being Gujarat Act no.6 of 1981 and the Amending Act introduced numerous Sections including Section 74C in the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
4.2 The all private Land Developments Banks are included in Section 74C(iii) of the Act and the new Chapter was enacted, namely, Chapter XI(A) which pertains to election of Committee and officers of certain societies. The State Legislature passed Gujarat Cooperative Societies (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982 and amending Section 26 of the said Act, made changes in Section 116 of the Act.
Sub-clause (1) of Section 116 was substituted which provides that the provision would apply to the Land Development Bank for advancing loans for improvement and development of agriculture and productive purposes. Sub-clauses (v) to (vii) in Section 116 of the Act were introduced, which provides that the provisions would be applicable to the Land Development Bank advancing loan to the agriculturist for purchase of agricultural lands whose agricultural lands have been acquired, promoting the development of animal husbandry, dairy farming, poultry farming, fishery and for purchase of share in a Cooperative Society engaged in manufacture of sugar.
4.3 The respondent no.4 was nominated by Junagadh Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd on 06.11.2019 by way of Resolution No.4 (1) to Page 3 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined participate in the election of Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Ltd and thus respondent no.4 was nominated in the election of Gujarat State Co-operative Bank and he was declared elected uncontested as Director/member of managing committee of Gujarat State Co- Operative Bank.
4.4 The resolution was passed by Gujarat State Co-Operative Bank Ltd whereby respondent no.4 was appointed as the representative/nominee by Gujarat State Co-Operative Bank Ltd to respondent no.3. The election of managing committee of the respondent no.3 bank was held whereby the election of 17 posts of Director was held and respondent no.4 didn't contest the election from any of the 17 seats. The respondent no.4 was inducted in the board of the respondent no.3- bank as representative of Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Ltd. The board of the respondent no.3 bank came to be constituted in October, 2021.
4.5 The AGM of respondent no.3 was convened where no amendments in bye-laws were proposed. The agenda issued to convene Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) and corrigendum was issued for the EGM proposing to amend bye-laws to favour the respondent no.4. The agenda and corrigendum of EGM was published and the EGM was held whereby the resolution was passed for amending the bye-laws of the society and even before the amendment in bye-laws are approved by the Registrar, respondent no.4 deposited Rs. 5 Lakh in respondent no.3 and got shares. It is only with a view to make him eligible for the post of Director and Chairman and the order was passed by the Registrar of Co-operatives whereby the proposed amendments of the respondent no.3 came to be Page 4 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined allowed.
4.6 Being aggrieved by the order passed by Registrar of Co- operatives, the present petitioner preferred Revision Application No.38 of 2025 before Deputy Secretary (Appeal); Agricultural, Farmers Welfare and Co-operation Department. The Deputy Secretary (Appeal) has stayed the order passed by the Registrar.
4.7 This Court, while passing the order in Special Civil Application No. 9352 of 2025, has set aside the interim order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appel) upon consensus of the parties and directed the Deputy Secretary to decide the revision application within 12 weeks. That the order was passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeal) in Revision Application No. 38 of 2025 whereby the order passed by Registrar of Co-operatives was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Registrar of Co-operatives for fresh consideration.
4.8 The petitioner addressed the letter to the Registrar of Cooperatives whereby it was submitted that respondent no.4 was ineligible to be the Director or Chairman of respondent no.3 - bank. The petitioner has also written letters to the Registrar of the Cooperatives wherein it has been stated by the petitioner that the respondent no.4 cannot hold 5 position as Director or Chairman of the respondent no.3 bank in view of section-74 (1A) (ii) of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioner has also addressed the letter requesting respondent authorities to exercise powers under section- 76(b) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 of removing the respondent no.3 as Chairman of the bank as he is not qualified/eligible to hold the post. That the issue with respect to Page 5 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined eligibility of the respondent no.4 to hold post as Chairman of the respondent no.3 bank was also raised in debate before Gujarat Assembly in the session.
4.9 The petitioner has addressed number of letters to the respondent no. 1 and 2, however, there is no any action taken by the respondent authorities even after number of representations made by the petitioner pointing out the illegalities committed by the respondent no.4. That the respondent no.4 is also not agriculturist and is not even eligible to become member of the respondent no.3 - bank. The request was made by the petitioner to take necessary steps for removing respondent no.4 as Director and Chairman of the respondent no.3 - bank but the same was not done and hence, the present petition is filed.
5. Heard Mr.Prakash Jani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Nikunj Kanara, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent - authorities, Mr.Dipen Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr.Ansin Desai, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.Venu Nanavaty, learned counsel for respondent No.3 at length.
6. Mr.Jani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that the appointment of respondent No.4 as Director and Chairman of respondent No.3 is illegal and violative of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the Court may pass an order to remove respondent No.4. He has referred to Section 74(1A)(ii) of the Act and submitted that as per said section, a person is required to be elected in order to be eligible to become member of the managing Page 6 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined committee and respondent No.4 herein is undisputably not elected and hence he cannot be a member of the committee of respondent No.3. He has submitted that the purpose and object of Section 74(1A)
(ii) of the Act is to ensure that a cooperative society is functioning in a democratic manner and no person is made Director or Chairman of the society without getting elected. He has submitted that respondent No.4 is not an agriculturist and respondent No.3 is for agriculturists and it's bye-laws provides that only agriculturists can become member and, therefore, respondent No.4 is not eligible to become member of respondent No.3. According to Mr.Jani, learned counsel, respondent No.4 was inducted in the board of respondent No.3 on the basis of the resolution passed by Board of Gujarat State Cooperative Bank for nominating respondent No.4 and the term of Gujarat State Cooperative Bank came to an end in December 2024 and, therefore, respondent No.4 is no more Director / Member of the committee of the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank.
6.1 Mr.Jani, learned senior counsel has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vipul M. Chaudhary Vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation reported in (2015) 8 SCC 1 more particularly para 6 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed about the cooperative principles which includes democratic set up of cooperative societies. The para - 6 of the said decision reads as under:-
"6. The Statement further provides for 'seven cooperative principles' as guidelines by which the cooperatives put their values into practice. Following are the principles:
"1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their Page 7 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.
2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control Co-operatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organized in a democratic manner.
3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co- operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co- operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.
4th Principle: Autonomy and Independence Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter to agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co- operative autonomy.
5th Principle: Education, Training and Information Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation.
6th Principle: Co-operation among Co- operatives Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co- operative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.
7th Principle: Concern for Community Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members." (Emphasis supplied)"Page 8 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 6.2 In support of his submissions, Mr.Jani, learned senior counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-
(1) MD. Firoz Ahmad Khalid Vs. The State of Manipur and others reported in 2025 INSC 535;
(2) Desai Govindbhai Shivlal Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary reported in 2010 (1) GCD 326;
(3) Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Patel Jayantilal Purshottamdas reported in 2002 (1) GLR 924;
(4) Patel Gaurangbhai Naranbhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 (1) GLR 319 6.3 Over-and-above the aforesaid oral submissions, Mr.Jani, learned senior counsel has submitted the written submissions, which is taken on record.
7. Mr.Kanara, learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and raised objections with regard to maintainability of present petition i.e. (i) availability of alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 145U of the Act before the Tribunal with regard to present fact-intensive dispute and (ii) no plausible explanation with reference to delay in initiation of present proceedings.
7.1 It is humbly submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner had previously filed various representations before the respondent - authority, to which the respondent - authority directed the District Registrar, Ahmedabad to conduct an inquiry. It is also submitted that upon perusal of the Page 9 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined inquiry report and relevant legal provisions, it is evident that any dispute regarding the election of respondent No. 4 falls within the jurisdiction of the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal under Section 145U. It is submitted that so far as the contention that Respondent No. 4 cannot hold office under Section 74(1-A)(2) if not an elected Director is concerned, the selection of respondent No.4 was conducted by an authorized election officer under Section 74-C and Section 145Z (Chapter 11-A) and as disputes relating to this election process rest solely with the Board of Nominees under Section 96, no further action is required from this office. It is further submitted that an order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Deputy Secretary in Revision Application No. 38 of 2025, concerning the amendment of the respondent No.3's bye-laws, is currently challenged by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 12935 of 2025 and since the Court has stayed the remand proceedings, no further action can be undertaken at this stage.
7.2 Mr.Kanara, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the Court may not entertain the petition and the same being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
8. Mr.Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has objected the petition and has 4 1 state that the main prayer of the petitioner is to remove the respondent No.4 as Director and Chairman of the respondent No. 3 Bank. It is submitted that the petition would not lie against a cooperative society and the petition deserves to be rejected.
8.1 It is submitted that though the petitioner has sought directions Page 10 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined against the State Authority, however, the main challenge is against respondents No.3 and 4 and, therefore, the petition does not require to be entertain and the same is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence. It is submitted that the petitioner has challenged the qualification of respondent No.4 for being Director and Chairman of respondent No. 3 Bank, however, the respondent No.4 has been continuing as Director and Chairman of the respondent No.3 since year 2021 and he has never challenged the same till filing of the present petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has all throughout accepted the respondent No.4 as Chairman of respondent No. 3 Bank without any objections or demure and the petitioner has also attended various meetings where respondent No.4 has chaired the said meetings and thereby the petitioner has accepted respondent No.4 as Chairman respondent No.3 without any objection whatsoever regarding his qualification and now after lapse of about four years because of the political reasons, the petitioner has preferred the petition.
8.2 It is submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition are misconceived and baseless and respondent No.4 was elected as Director of the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Limited in the year 2021. It is submitted that the bye-law No. 28(1) of respondent No.3 provides that there shall be one Director who shall be nominated by the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Limited from amongst its Board of Directors, provided that it holds a particular quantity of shares. It is submitted that respondent No.4 is an elected Director of the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Limited and thereafter, as far as one Director being sent to the Board of Directors of the respondent No.3 bank is concerned, as provided under Section Page 11 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 145D(2) of the Act, an election was held by the Deputy Collector on 26.07.2021, in which, respondent No.4 was elected as uncontested to be sent as Director of respondent No.3.
8.4 It is submitted that respondent No.4 has become a Director of the respondent No.3 by way of conducting the elections and therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.4 is only a nominated member and, thereafter, on 06.09.2021, election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of respondent No.3 was held, wherein, respondent No.4 was elected as Chairman.
8.5 It is submitted the term of the Chairman and Vice Chairman is two and half years and on expiry of the term, again election was held on 26.02.2024, wherein the respondent No.4 was again elected as the Chairman. It is submitted that the petitioner neither questioned the election held in the year 2021 nor challenged the election held in the year 2024. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that respondent No.4 is not qualified to be a Chairman of the respondent No. 3 society.
8.6 It is further submitted that earlier in the year 2014, respondent No.4 was similarly sent as Director of respondent No.3 and at that time, respondent No.4 became the Vice Chairman of the respondent No.3 Bank. However, even though the petitioner was member of the Sakha Samiti since 2014 and, thereafter, has become the delegate in the 2021. The petitioner has never challenged election / appointment of respondent No.4 and therefore, there is no cause now for the petitioner to challenge or question the eligibility of the respondent No.4.
Page 12 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 8.7 So far as the contentions raised by the petitioner that respondent No.4 is not qualified to be Director of the respondent No.3 and that amendment in the bye-laws were made by respondent No.3 only to make respondent No.4 eligible is concerned, Mr.Desai, learned counsel submitted that the said contentions are clearly false, baseless and answering respondents in the proceeding of Special Civil Application No. 12933 of 2025 and 12935 of 2025, which are relating to the amendment of the bye-laws, have explained in detail the procedure undertaken for amendment of bye-laws and the present petitioner is party to the said proceeding and is aware about the same.
8.8 It is submitted that respondent No.3 Bank proposed various amendments in the byelaws in the 70th Annual General Meeting, which was scheduled to be held on 28.06.2022, wherein amendment to various byelaws were proposed, including amendment to byelaw No.28, more particularly to the effect that there shall one seat in the Board of Directors for persons from amongst non-agriculturist and such seat shall be filled by way of election. The said amendment proposed and agenda to that effect was issued on 14.06.2022 to each and every member of the respondent No.3 Bank and was also published in daily newspaper "Sandesh" on 14.06.2022.
8.9 It is submitted that in the Annual General body Meeting, petitioner had remained present and it was unanimously resolved to approve the said amendment. The petitioner has not objected to the said proposed amendment and inspite of the fact that he was present in the Annual General Meeting, he is falsely stating before this Court Page 13 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined that the said byelaws was approved in the general body meeting dated 28.12.2024, which is completely false.
8.10 It is submitted that the general body meeting dated 28.06.2022 approved the said amendment and the same was placed for approval of the Registrar under Section 13 of the Act by the respondent No.3 Bank vide proposal dated 03.08.2022 and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide order dated 20.02.2023 approved the said amendment.
8.11 It is submitted that thereafter, a special general body meeting of respondent No.3 was held on 05.02.2023, wherein one of the agenda items was with regard to approval of the minutes of the general body meeting dated 28.06.2022 and there were other agenda items also including agenda items to amend certain other byel-aws. In the said special general meeting dated 05.02.2023, petitioner was present and never raised any objection with regard to the approval of the minutes of the meeting dated 28.06.2022, wherein byelaw No.28 was approved.
8.12 It is submitted that thereafter, next general body meeting of respondent No.3 Bank was held on 28.08.2023, wherein. the agenda notice was issued on 11.08.2023. In the said agenda notice, item No.9 was with regards to the consideration of the order passed by the Registrar approving bye-laws No. 28(6) which is the bye-laws permitting depositors to be members of the bank and to challenge the said decision of the Registrar in so far as it rejected the certain other amendments. In the said general body meeting also, petitioner Ramesh Nathubhai Chatrubhai had remained present, but did not object.
Page 14 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 8.13 It is further submitted that the petitioner is making completely false statement to the effect that the amendments allowing depositors to be the Directors has been passed in the general body meeting dated 18.02.2024 which in not the case at all and as stated above, the said amendment was approved in the general body meeting dated 28.06.2022 and the same was approved by the Registrar on 20.02.2023. In all the general body meetings, petitioner was present and never objected, inspite of which completely false statement is being made before this Court and therefore, objection of petitioner is required to be rejected on this count alone.
8.14 So far as the contentions with regard to the challenge to the amendment of the byelaws and the order passed by the Registrar and Deputy Secretary (Appeals) is concerned, it is submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) dated 29.08.2025 is subject matter of the challenge before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12933 of 2025 and 12935 of 2025, wherein this Court has issued notice and has passed interim order in favour of respondent No.3, where, this Court by way of order dated 18.11.2025 has been pleased to issue notice and grant interim relief directing that the Registrar shall not proceed with the hearing of the remand proceedings till the date of hearing.
8.15 Mr.Desai, learned counsel has submitted that the petition may not be entertained and the same being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
8.16 In support of his submissions, Mr.Desai, learned counsel has Page 15 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined relied upon the relied upon the following decisions:-
(1) Ram Chandra Choudhary and others Vs. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited and others reported in 2026 INSC 347;
(2) Kanubhai Ishvarbhai Patel Vs. Municipal Commissioner reported in 2012 (0) GUJHC 8610;
(3) Daman Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670;
(4) Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Limited Vs. Sri Aloke Kumar reported in (2024) 14 SCC 466;
8.17 Over-and-above the aforesaid oral submissions, Mr.Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted the written submissions, which is taken on record.
9. Mr.Desai, learned senior counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted that the petition suffers from vice of suppression of material facts because till date the petitioner has deliberately concealed about the issue of amendment which is stayed by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner being a member of respondent No.3, in absence of any personal right being affected, he has no locus to file this petition because it is settled legal position that members have no independent right and once a person becomes member of the cooperative society, he loses his individuality. He has submitted that the present petition is filed in the nature of personal interest and/or political interest when no particulars of the petitioner are mentioned, a petition in the nature of private or cooperative Page 16 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined dispute is not maintainable in the eyes of law. He has submitted that the petition is barred by delay, laches and acquiescence and the petitioner has deliberately not mentioned the dates of challenge nor has he given dates in the prayer clause and the original challenge in the petition is hit by delay and laches of about 4 years. He has submitted that no fundamental rights of the petitioner can be said to be infringed so as to attract writ jurisdiction of this Court and even there is alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the election before the appropriate forum and when statutory remedy provided under the statute then unless the same is availed of, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained.
9.1 Mr.Desai, learned senior counsel has referred and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply reads as under:-
"So far as first ground with regard to Section 74 (1A) (iii) is concerned, the same is clearly barred by delay, laches and acquiescence. It is also submitted that the petitioner is trying to assert before this Hon'ble Court as if nomination is not permissible in law and a person nominated, though provided in law, cannot be equated to elected post. I humbly deny such an assertion and when there is a provision for nomination the necessary corollary would be that the person can be equated to elected post. This contention may kindly not be accepted as there is no implied or express bar that a nominated member cannot be elected as Chairman only because the source of reaching to the post is through nomination. There is no distinction provided between 'nomination' and 'election'. The Petitioner by narrowly construing the provision of Section 74 (1A)(ii) is trying to raise a dispute despite the above legal position.
So far as second ground is concerned the contention is raised i.e the term of the qualifying post is over in December 2024 so the deponent cannot continue on the post of Chairman is absurd and lacks merit; this contention is frivolous because neither is such a Page 17 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined contention based on any provision of law under the Act nor does any such by-law is provided. It is also submitted that my term has got over because of efflux of time and not on any other ground of disqualification by removal, stigma or on any other ground. The petitioner strangely tries to contend that because my term has got over in December 2024 in the board of Gujarat State Cooperative Bank I cannot continue as Chairman of the Respondent no.3 Bank. This contention of the petitioner is legally incorrect, the proposition being placed before this Hon'ble Court if accepted then, many terms in many posts would be interrupted leading to a situation where elections are to be held all the time and functioning of the society or the body concerned would be left in jeopardy.
So far as third ground is is concerned, the same is denied and the so-called principal issue raised is denied and is devoid of merits as the petitioner is trying to raise multiple issues pleaded in the alternative and the same is irrelevant to the so-called principal allegation being leveled in the petition, the petitioner is trying to develop theory of elimination of grounds which is also devoid of merits of the main issue raised and such alternative pleas without any basis may not be permitted and even otherwise highly dispute questions of fact are being raised before this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has deliberately approached this Court for ventilating political grievance which amounts to abuse of process of the court; no public interest is involved and internal problems are being brought up indirectly through this petition. Hence, the petition may kindly be dismissed with costs.
So far as paragraph no. 3.1 is concerned, so far as the fact is concerned, no comments are offered. It is most humbly submitted that the Petitioner is member of the Respondent no.3 Bank therefore in absence of any personal right being affected, the Petitioner has no locus to file the present petition because it is settled position of law that members have no independent right and once a person becomes member of a co-operative society, he loses his individuality to that of the Society. Hence, the Petitioner have no locus to file and maintain the present petition. Just because he is member does not give him a right to challenge without there being any breach of fundamental right.
As per Resolution no.4 (1) passed by the Executive Committee Meeting of the Junagadh Commercial Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Dolarrai Kotecha came to be nominated on its behalf to participate in the upcoming elections for Managing Committee of The Gujarat State Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Subsequently the deponent was Page 18 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined elected uncontested as Director in the Gujarat State Co. Operative Bank.
The deponent has submitted the following facts:
A meeting was held on 26.07.2021 for the purpose of appointment of representative of the Gujarat State Co. Op. Bank Ltd. from amongst its members to be sent to the Respondent no. 3 Bank. In pursuance to the agenda, the Election Officer and City Dy. Collector (East), Ahmedabad was present and Directors as per the list were present, wherein the deponent was declared uncontested for the same.
The new Board of Respondent no.3 Bank was constituted on 06.09.2021 and Dolarrai Kotecha was elected uncontested as Chairman of Respondent no.3 Bank. The communication dtd.06.10.2021 mentions that First meeting of Board of Directors in presence of City Dy. Collector (East) Ahmedabad was held on dt.06.09.2021, in which election of Chairman and Vice Chairman election having completed, new Board has come in force from this date.
On 26.02.2024, Election meeting was held in presence of members and the Election Officer for the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman wherein the deponent herein was elected uncontested as Chairman of Respondent no.3 Bank.
It is pertinent to note that none of the above nominations or elections have been challenged by the Petitioner herein at the relevant point of time despite the Petitioner being well aware and informed with regard to the same and the present petition is now filed on 16.09.2025 which clearly depicts the malafides of the petitioner and that the petitioner has deliberately approached this Court for ventilating political grievance.
It is most humbly submitted that the allegations are baseless, false and incorrect and misleading. It is submitted that the since the Petitioner is not in a position to validate his claim through any legal or valid basis, the petitioner is trying to raise such issues as mentioned in these paragraphs only with a view to prejudice this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that as such the averments are not relevant to the present dispute and ground is raised the same is denied and the so-called principal issue raised is denied and is devoid of merits as the petitioner is trying to raise multiple issues pleaded in the alternative and the same is irrelevant to the so-called principal allegation being leveled in the petition, the petitioner is trying to develop theory of elimination of grounds which is also Page 19 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined devoid of merits of the main issue raised and such alternative pleas without any basis may not be permitted and even otherwise highly dispute questions of fact are being raised before this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is most humbly submitted that the Petitioner has deliberately concealed about the issue of amendment which is stayed by this Hon'ble Court, though from paragraphs 3.15 to paragraphs 3.27 issue of amendment in by-laws is loudly raised and subsequently, the Petitioner has not disclosed this fact even by any Additional Affidavit.
It is most humbly submitted the interpretation of the provisions of law are deliberate being misinterpreted without any basis by the Petitioner. The said ground is clearly barred by delay, laches and acquiescence. It is also submitted that the petitioner is trying to assert before this Hon'ble Court as if nomination is not permissible in law and a person nominated, though provided in law, cannot be equated to elected post. I humbly deny such an assertion and when there is a provision for nomination the necessary corollary would be that the person can be equated to elected post. This contention may kindly not be accepted as there is no implied or express bar that a nominated member cannot be elected as Chairman only because the source of reaching to the post is through nomination. There is no distinction provided between 'nomination' and 'election'. The Petitioner by narrowly construing the provision of Section 74 (1A)(ii) is trying to raise a dispute despite the above legal position. It is most humbly submitted that the judgement relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the present case and not relevant in the facts of the present case.
The submissions and contentions present reply may kindly be considered as reply in extenso to the arguments raised in this paragraph in order to avoid repetition and in order to avoid burdening the record because the contents of the said paragraph of the petition are repetitions. The deponent begs to add, amend, alter, rescind as and when required.
The submissions and contentions present reply may kindly be considered as reply in extenso to the arguments raised in this paragraph in order to avoid repetition and in order to avoid burdening the record because the contents of the said paragraph of the petition are repetitions. The deponent begs to add, amend, alter, rescind as and when required.
Even assuming without admitting that the grievance of the Petitioner is to be agitated even then an alternative, efficacious remedy lies before the appropriate court/forum by way of an appropriate application. available to the petitioner by challenging Page 20 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined the election before appropriate forum. As per settled legal proposition of law that when any statutory remedy specifically provided under the statute is the most efficacious remedy then, unless the same is availed of, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
The petitioner seems to have preferred the present petition in the nature of 'personal interest' and/or 'political interest', when no particulars of the petitioner are mentioned such a petition in the nature of private or co-operative dispute is not maintainable and even a petition in public interest is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner has deliberately not set out dates of challenge in the initial paragraphs, nor has the petitioner given dates in the prayer clause; hence, the petitioner has deliberately drafted the petition in a shrewd and crafty manner so as to come out of delay, laches and acquiescence. The original challenge in the petition is also hit by delay and laches of about 4 years. The memo of the petition especially the prayers do not mention the dates of orders under challenge and even if dates of all the relevant orders passed in favour of the deponent herein are seen, even then the petition is clearly hit by delay, laches and acquiescence."
9.2 Mr.Desai, learned senior counsel has submitted that the petition may not be entertained and the same being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
9.3 In support of his submissions, Mr.Desai, learned senior counsel has relied upon the following decisions:
(1) State of Gujarat Vs. Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Appeals and others, reported in 2019 (2) GLR 1095 more particularly paras 41 to 50;
(2) Sarvepalli Ramaiah (dead) Lrs and others Vs. District Collector, Chittoor District and others reported in (2019) 4 SCC 500 more particularly paras 46 and 47;
(3) Jharkhand Mazdoor Sangh Vs. President Officer, reported in Page 21 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined (2002) 10 SCC 703 more particularly paras 1 and 2; (4) Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs. K. Thangappan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 more particularly paras 6 to 10;
9.4 Over-and-above the aforesaid oral submissions, Mr.Desai, learned senior counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted the written submissions, which is taken on record.
ANALYSIS:
10. The following points are framed for determination:
(1) Whether the petitioner has right to file the petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 as Chairman of respondent No.3 - society in the second term or not? (2) Whether the petitioner proves that any of his rights including fundamental rights have been prejudiced by appointment of respondent No.4 or not?
(3) Whether the petitioner has any locus to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 or not?
(4) Whether the appointment of respondent No.4 is against the provisions of law more particularly Section 74(1)(a)(ii) of the Act?
(5) Whether the petition is barred by delay, laches and acquiescence or not?
FINDINGS:
11. On perusal of material on record and above stated facts, let first Page 22 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined go to the petitioner's status as he has stated in para 3.1 that he has become the member of the Gujarat State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank i.e. respondent No.3 and, therefore, he is being delegate and having locus to file this petition. While considering the prayers made in the petition more particularly prayer 8(A), the petitioner seeks removal of respondent No.4 from respondent No.3 as a Chairman and the direction was sought against respondents No.1 and 2 to remove respondent No.4. Since respondent No.4 was elected on 06.09.2021 as a Chairman of respondent No.3 and now almost after five years, the petitioner has raised the grievance against appointment of respondent No.4 as Chairman of respondent No.3. It is an admitted fact that till 2025 i.e. on 03.04.2025, for the first time, the petitioner has raised grievance against appointment of respondent No.4 by way of making representation to the concerned respondent - authority and thereafter representations were also made on 05.06.2025, 15.07.2025 and 18.07.2025. On perusal of these dates, it is clearly established that for the period of five years, the petitioner has not chosen to raise any objection. It is also to be noted herein that whether the petitioner has any right to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 as he was an elected member of the society and after election he was declared as elected Chairman of the society and in the election, no any mala fide was noticed by respondents No.1 and 2 and he was elected as member cannot be removed by merely at whims of the petitioner because there is no any illegality or disqualification incurred to respondent No.4. Therefore, merely by saying that respondent No.4 is not a member of the agricultural society and he was only elected for the Gujarat Cooperative Society. That respondent No.4 was the original member of the Gujarat State Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and he Page 23 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined was elected in the society and he was elected in the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank as a Director on 31.12.2019 and as he is a member of the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank he was nominated by the society for appointing as a Director / Chairman in the Gujarat State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank i.e. respondent No.3 and except for respondent No.4 no one has contested the election and, therefore, he was declared uncontested member of respondent No.3 - society on 26.07.2021 and, thereafter, he became elected Chairman of respondent No.3. Now, in the process, there was no any breach or fundamental rights was violated of the petitioner and he has not stated that how he is affected by appointment of respondent No.4 as he was originally appointed in 2021 and since more than five years there was no grievance raised by the petitioner against respondent No.4 as he become the member of respondent No.3, he loses his individual status and if at all he has any grievance, it is to be route to the society instead of that the petitioner has filed this petition seeking to remove respondent No.4 though he is an elected member. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to prove the fact that how he become affected by election of respondent No.4 and what fundamental rights are prejudice or violated by election of respondent No.4 as Chairman of respondent No.3. Since more than five years, respondent No.4 was working as Chairman and till date the petitioner has not raised any objection and suddenly in 2025 he has raised objection against respondent No.4 as there is no breach committed by respondent No.4 as provided under the statute nor he was declared ineligible or incurred any disqualification. In my opinion, the petitioner has failed to prove the fact that whether there is any independent right of the petitioner is violated or not and under that circumstances, the petition Page 24 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined deserves to be dismissed.
12. Now on going to another contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 is not an agriculturist and cannot become the member of respondent No.3 as he was member of the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank and he was nominated by the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank for respondent No.3 and, therefore, he is not qualified to be even member, therefore, he is also not qualified for holding the post of Chairman of respondent No.3. So far as the contention with regard to the fact that there is no prohibition provided under the statute or there is no distinguished provided under the statute or not is concerned, whether the elected member or nominated member cannot contest election and cannot appoint as a committee member or the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the society. Looking to the provisions of Section 74C of the Act, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 - State Development Bank is incorporated in 1951 which is an affixed society and governed under the provisions of Section 74C of the Act. On perusal of the provisions of Section 116 to Section 145, it appears that power is vested with respondent No.2 and its appointment as an instrumentality of the State and, therefore, it has power to remove but how this power can be exercised and under what circumstances, it can be exercised. Whether respondent No.4 loses status by incurring any disqualification; there is no material worth the name produced by the petitioner that these are the reasons respondent No.4 has incurred disqualification and therefore he cannot be appointed as Chairman of respondent No.3. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that whether respondent No.4 is incurred Page 25 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined any disqualification because he is a nominated member and not primary member of the society. It is to be noted that the petitioner has contended that respondent No.4 is not qualified being Director or member of respondent No.3 and therefore respondent No.4 cannot be allowed to make any amendment in bye-laws of respondent No.3 as proposed. In fact, for the similar purpose, one another petition was filed wherein this Court has granted stay in favour of respondent No.4 and though the petitioner is aware this fact, he has not stated correct facts while going through the submissions made in the petition from para 3.15 to 3.28. The proposed bye laws challenged before this Court by filing petition which is at present pending wherein the petitioner is a party and therefore on the ground of suppression of material facts, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. Now on going through the third primary objection raised by respondent No.4 with regard to delay, laches and acquiescence, it is an admitted fact that upto 03.04.2025, the petitioner has never raised any objection against the appointment of respondent No.4 being Director / Chairman in respondent No.3 and, therefore, the present petition is filed after almost more than five years and hence, it is clear that the petition is not filed immediately challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 though respondent No.4 was already elected way back in 2021 as Director / Chairman of respondent No.3, now after more than five years, his appointment was challenged by the petitioner seeking to remove him is barred by law of limitation. The petitioner is disentitled to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 being Director / Chairman of respondent No.3 after almost five years and, therefore, the petition itself is barred by delay, laches and acquiescence as the petitioner has waived his right available under Page 26 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined the law from 2021 to 2025. Unless and until, there is any fundamental right violated or any order passed against the petitioner by any authority, he cannot approach the High Court by way of the writ petition under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India as there is no breach or violation is noticed from the record that all the fundamental rights were violated by appointment of respondent No.4 as Chairman / Director of respondent No.3. Whether any right was infringed by the act of appointment of respondent No.4 or not. This Court is satisfied that the petitioner has not shown any act or omission on the part of the respondents whereby any fundamental right was prejudice or infringed by the act or omission to the petitioner and, therefore, this Court cannot exercise extraordinary jurisdiction merely at whims or capris of the petitioner.
14. It is pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that there was efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under Section 145U of the Act, which reads thus:-
"145U. Disputes relating to elections to be submitted to the [Tribunal].
- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 96 or any other provisions of this Act, any dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the [Tribunal] (2) Such reference may be made by an aggrieved party by presenting an election petition to the [Tribunal]:
Provided that no such petition shall be made till after the final result of the election is declared and where any such petition is made it shall not be admitted by the [Tribunal] unless it is made within two months from the date of such declaration:
Provided further that, the [Tribunal] may admit any petition after the expiry of that period, if the petitioner satisfies the [Tribunal] that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within the said period.Page 27 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined (3) In exercising the functions conferred on it by or under this Chapter, the [Tribunal] shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court in respect of --
(a) proof of facts by affidavit;
(b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(c) compelling discovery or the production of documents, and
(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses.
In the case of any such affidavit, an officer appointed by the [Tribunal] in this behalf may administer the oath to the deponent.
(4) [Subject to any regulations] made by the [Tribunal] in this behalf, any such petition shall be heard and disposed of by the [Tribunal] as expeditiously as possible. An order made by the [Tribunal] on such petition shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called in question in any Court."
15. It is contended that without approaching the concerned authority i.e. Tribunal, the petitioner has directly approached this Court by way of present petition seeking extraordinary jurisdiction to be exercised on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. It is also contended that the petitioner has preferred numerous representations after almost five years and on the basis of that, respondent No.2 has called for the report and ordered to inquire into the matter and also called for the report and on receipt of the said report dated 19.01.2026, the concerned authority has given reply to the petitioner that if at all he wanted to challenge the election of the respondent then the petitioner ought to have approached the competent authority provided under the statute before whom he can challenge the election of respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 was duly elected as election was conducted as per the provisions of Section 145Z of the Act which reads as under:-
Page 28 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined "145Z. Special provision for election of officers of specified societies. - (1) This section shall apply only to election of officers by members of committees of societies belonging to the categories specified in section 74C.
(2) After the election of the members of the committee, or whenever such election is due, the election of the officer or officers of any such society shall be held as provided in its bye-laws, but any meeting of the committee for this purpose shall be presided over by the Collector or an officer nominated by him' in this behalf.]"
16. Now the contention raised by the petitioner in the petition more particularly in paras 3.15 to 3.28, there is specific mention about Special Civil Application No. 12935 of 2025 which is pending before this Court and since the subject matter of the present petition is already challenged by way of the said petition, which is pending, on that ground also the present petition cannot be entertained.
17. On perusal of Section 74(1A)(iii) of the Act, it is barred by delay, laches and acquiescence as the petitioner is trying to assert that respondent No.4 was a nominated member and he is not qualified under the law to become elected Chairman / Director, to which the petitioner has not produced any relevant document that whether any distinguished in the law which is provided that the person is either nominated or elected to the due election process not capable to hold the post of Director / Chairman. This Court has gone through the relevant provisions, but there is no any expressed or ample bar found that nominated member cannot be filed his candidature to contest the election either for the post of Director or the Chairman. The respondent No.4 is duly elected through the proper election process undertaken by the concerned respondent as per Section 145(2) of the Act and, therefore, the dispute raised by the petitioner is devoid of Page 29 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined merits.
18. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 was elected originally in the Gujarat State Cooperative Society in 2019 and his term got over in December 2024, therefore, he cannot hold the post after 2024 in respondent No.3 as his second term is completely is illegal. The said contention is not supported by any material or cogent reason as the petitioner has not produced any provisions provided in the bye-laws or in the Act also; there is no provision provided that by afflux of time the person gets disqualified automatically. Unless and until, there is any disqualification as mentioned in the Act, incurred by the petitioner or any stigmatic reason or act against the interest of the society, the person cannot be removed or disqualified. But in the present case, there is no whisper about there being any disqualification incurred by respondent No.4 and, therefore, under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed at threshold.
19. On perusal of the averments made in the petition, prima facie it emerges that due to some political rivalry between the groups this petition is filed by the petitioner as there was no direct or indirect interest or rights violated by the Act to elect as a Director / Chairman in the society and if at all, he wants to challenge the election then this is provided under the statute and statutory mechanism is provided for which the petitioner has to approach the competent authority by preferring appropriate proceedings and present election of respondent No.3.
20. Mr.Dipen Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has tried Page 30 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined to submit that the petition itself is not maintainable and has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Choudhary (supra). This Court is of the view that the fact of the said case is not similar to the fact of the present petition and hence the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present case.
22. In the case of Union Of India Vs. N.Murugesan Etc. reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras 21 and 28 as under:-
"21. The word laches is derived from the French language meaning "remissness and slackness". It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy.
28. We would not dwell deep into the extraordinary and discretionary nature of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This principle is to be extended much more when an element of undue delay, laches and acquiescence is involved. The following decisions of this Court would suffice:
28.1 UP Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464:
"8. Our attention was also invited to a decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya [(1996) 6 SCC 267 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1488] . In that case the respondents woke up to claim the relief which was granted to their colleagues by the Tribunal with an application to condone the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay. Therefore, the state approached this Court and this Court after considering the matter observed as under: (SCC p. 268) "Although it is not necessary to give an explanation for the delay which occurred within the period mentioned in subsections (1) or (2) of Section 21, explanation should be given for the delay which Page 31 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined occasioned after the expiry of the aforesaid respective period applicable to the appropriate case and the Tribunal should satisfy itself whether the explanation offered was proper. In the instant case, the explanation offered was that they came to know of the relief granted by the Tribunal in August 1989 and that they filed the petition immediately thereafter. That is not a proper explanation at all. What was required of them to explain under sub-sections (1) and (2) was as to why they could not avail of the remedy of redressal of their grievances before the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2). That was not the explanation given.
Therefore, the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in condoning the delay."
9. Similarly in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana [(1997) 6 SCC 538 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 1550] this Court reaffirmed the rule that if a person chose to sit over the matter and then woke up after the decision of the Court, then such person cannot stand to benefit. In that case it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 542) "The delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and woke up when they had the impetus from Virpal Singh Chauhan case [Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813] . The appellants desperate attempt to redo the seniority is not amenable to judicial review at this belated stage."
10. In Union of India v. C.K. Dharagupta [(1997) 3 SCC 395 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 821] it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 398, para 9) "9. We, however, clarify that in view of our finding that the judgment of the Tribunal in R.P. Joshi [R.P. Joshi v. Union of India, OA No. 497 of 1986 decided on 17-3-1987] gives relief only to Joshi, the benefit of the said judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to any other person. The respondent C.K. Dharagupta (since retired) is seeking benefit of Joshi case [R.P. Joshi v. Union of India, OA No. 497 of 1986 decided on 17-3-1987] . In view of our finding that the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 17-3- 1987 could only be given to Joshi and nobody else, even Dharagupta is not entitled to any relief."
11. In Govt. of WB v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 225] their Lordships considered delay as serious factor and have not granted relief. Therein it was observed as follows: (SCC pp. 359-60, para 34) Page 32 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined "34. The respondents furthermore are not even entitled to any relief on the ground of gross delay and laches on their part in filing the writ petition. The first two writ petitions were filed in the year 1976 wherein the respondents herein approached the High Court in 1992. In between 1976 and 1992 not only two writ petitions had been decided, but one way or the other, even the matter had been considered by this Court in Debdas Kumar [State of WB v. Debdas Kumar, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 138 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 841 : (1991) 17 ATC 261]. The plea of delay, which Mr Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law, no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to make any observation only for the purpose of grant of some relief to the respondents to which they are not legally entitled to so as to deprive others therefrom who may be found to be entitled thereto by a court of law."
28.2 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Dugal Kumar, (2008) 14 SCC 295:
"24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant Company. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
25. Under the English law, an application for leave for judicial review should be made "promptly". If it is made tardily, it may be rejected. The fact that there is breach of public law duty does not necessarily make it irrelevant to consider delay or laches on the part of the applicant. Even if leave is granted, the question can be considered at the time of final hearing whether relief should be granted in favour of such applicant or not. (Vide R. v. Essex County Council [1993 COD 344] .)
26. In R. v. Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal, ex p Caswell [(1990) 2 AC 738 : (1990) 2 WLR 1320 : (1990) 2 All ER 434 (HL)] , AC at p.Page 33 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 749, the House of Lords stated [Ed.: Quoting from O'Reilly v. Mackman, (1982) 3 All ER 1124 at p. 1131a-b.] : (All ER p. 441a-b) "The public interest in good administration requires that public authorities and third parties should not be kept in suspense as to the legal validity of a decision the authority has reached in purported exercise of decision-making powers for any longer period than is absolutely necessary in fairness to the person affected by the decision."
27. The underlying object of refusing to issue a writ has been succinctly explained by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd [1874 LR 5 PC 221 : 22 WR 492] , thus:
(LR pp. 239-40) "Now the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy." (emphasis supplied)
28. This Court has accepted the above principles of English law. In Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110 : (1969) 2 SCR 824] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84 : (1970) 2 SCR 697] this Court ruled that even in cases of violation or infringement of fundamental rights, a writ court may take into account delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court. And if there is gross or unexplained delay, the court may refuse to grant relief in favour of such petitioner."
28.3 State of J&K v. R.K. Zalpuri, (2015) 15 SCC 602:
"20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala [City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Page 34 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168] , wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus: (SCC p. 175, para 30) "30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law;
and host of other factors."
21. In this regard reference to a passage from Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan [Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 791] would be apposite: (SCC p. 325, para 6) "6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party." After so stating the Court after referring to the authority in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566] restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements, which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 326, para 9) "9. .....the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort Page 35 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction."
22. In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar [State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683] a three-Judge Bench laid down that:
(SCC p. 692, para 19) "19. Power of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable, admits of no controversy. It is for that reason, a person's entitlement for relief from a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, be it against the State or anybody else, even if is founded on the allegation of infringement of his legal right, has to necessarily depend upon unblameworthy conduct of the person seeking relief, and the court refuses to grant the discretionary relief to such person in exercise of such power, when he approaches it with unclean hands or blameworthy conduct."
23. Recently in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu [Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 38] , it has been ruled thus: (SCC p. 117, para 16) "16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant-a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, 'procrastination is the greatest thief of time' and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes Page 36 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined injury to the lis."
24. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that the question of delay and laches in all kinds of cases would not curb or curtail the power of the writ court to exercise the discretion. In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn. [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn., (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] it has been ruled that: (SCC pp. 359- 60, para 12) "12. ... Delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause of action, etc. That apart, if the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third-party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience."
And again: (SCC p. 360, para 14) "14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a nondeliberate delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners. (Vide Durga Prashad v. Controller of Imports and Exports [Durga Prashad v. Controller of Imports and Exports, (1969) 1 SCC 185] , Collector (LA) v. Katiji [Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 172] , Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur [Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598] , Dayal Singh v. Union of India [Dayal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 593] and Shankara Coop. Housing Page 37 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13199/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar [Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar, (2011) 5 SCC 607 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 56] .)"
23. This Court has considered the facts of the case and the averments made in the petition as well as the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respective respondents and considered the fact that the petition is filed after a long period of five years. This Court has also considered the decisions cited at the Bar and the decisions relied upon by Mr.Desai, learned senior counsel for respondent No.4 in the case of (1) Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Appeals (supra), (2) Sarvepalli Ramaiah (dead) Lrs (supra), (3) Jharkhand Mazdoor Sangh and K. Thangappan (supra) are applicable to the facts of the present case.
24. In view of the aforesaid foregoing reasons and the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 38 of 38 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:39:05 IST 2026