Jayeshbhai Natvarbhai Patel & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J

RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Angesh Panchal, learned counsel for the respondents waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.

Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and Rules seeking reliefs:

"A. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent No.1 - Deputy Secretary (Appeals) to hear and decide the Revision Application No. 4 of 2026 within stipulated short time as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court but preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of order that may be passed by this Hon'ble Court.

B. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 -Deputy Secretary (Appeals) to prepone the date of hearing of the revision application of 4 of 2026

C. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice."

Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioners seek direction upon the respondent no.1 to decide the Revision Application No.4 of 2026 filed by the petitioners within such stipulated short time, preferably within a period of 15 days. That, though the petitioners have filed applications before the Revision Authority for deciding the revision application at the earliest, the said applications have not been considered and the date of revision application has not been preponed.

Heard Mr. Dipan Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Angesh Panchal, learned AGP for the respondents.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the orders and judgments passed by the concerned Authorities. It appears that the petitioners were earlier elected as members of the Managing Committee of the Cooperative Society but the Committee was superseded and an Administrator was appointed to manage the affairs of the society. The petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking directions to respondent - Deputy Secretary (Appeals) for deciding the Revision Application No. 4 of 2026 which challenges the action of the respondent - District Registrar in superseding the elected Managing Committee of the society and appointing an Administrator. It is a contention on the part of the petitioners that the said revision be decided within a short period. Mr. Panchal, learned AGP is unable to provide an exact date for the hearing and has submitted that respondent - Deputy Secretary (Appeals) shall decide the revision within outer limit of three months.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and averments made in the petition, the matter is partly allowed.

In the result, the petition is hereby partly allowed with a direction to respondent no. 1 - Deputy Secretary (Appeals) to decide the Revision Application No. 4 of 2026 preferred by the petitioners within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The respondent no. 1 - Deputy Secretary (Appeals) shall decide the same in accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.