KASRA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED vs LD. BOARD OF NOMINEES, MAHASANA THROUGH THE REGISTRAR & ORS.

Heard learned advocate Mr. V. C. Vaghela for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Ashish Shah for the third respondent, who is contesting respondent.

The challenge in this petition is directed against order dated 06.04.2016 passed below Exh.6 in Lavad Suit No. 231 of 2015 by respondent No.1-the Board of Nominees, Mehsana. Also called in question and prayed to be set aside is order dated 22.12.2015 passed by respondent No.2-Banaskantha District Co-operative Milk Producers'' Union whereby it allowed to start respondent No.3''s proposed Sahakari Mandali, which was the subject-matter challenge before the Board of Nominees, Meshana.

As the third respondent Mahila Mandali was permitted to start milk collection actively and to operate in the area, the petitioner Kasra Dudh Utpadak Mandali felt aggrieved and filed the aforementioned Lavad Suit before the court of Board of Nominees. The case pleaded was that there were about 150 members of the Mandali and there was no need for giving permission to another Mandali to operate for milk collection in the area. It was also contended that the third respondent had started collecting Milk in violation of interim order passed in previous suit No. 31 of 2015. It was the case that the village was small and geographically it was inadvisable to set up and permit another Mandali and that the distance between the petitioner Mandali and the proposed third respondent Mandali was barely about 50 to 60 meters. In the said suit Application, interim injunction application was filed praying for injunction against defendant No.1-District Union from accepting milk supply from defendant No.3-the proposed society.

For the reasons recored in the order, the Board of Nominees partly allowed Exh.6 application granting injunction that defendant No.2-respondent No.3 herein-the proposed society shall not accept the milk from the members of the plaintiff-petitioner herein society till final disposal of the Lavad Suit. The present petition is brought against the said order. 4.1 As per the affidavit-in-reply filed by the third respondent, it had submitted application on 10.12.2015 to the first respondent-the Banaskantha Milk Producers'' Union for accepting the milk of respondent No.3, which application was submitted on behalf of 173 women members. The manager of respondent No.1 union had submitted a report dated 19.12.2015 and pursuant to which respondent No.1 issued office order dated 22.12.2015. It is the case of the third respondent also that the distance between the petitioner society and the third respondent is more than 2 kms., therefore on account of the distance, it was submitted, there was no likelihood of any adverse effect on the functioning of the petitioner society. It was submitted that under a circulate dated 29.11.2011, Mission Mangalam Programme is implemented to promote Mehila Dudh Utpadak Mandalis.

Having taken into account the facts, having gone through the impugned order and also having considered the submissions of the parties, it is for the following reasons and considerations that this court is not inclined to entertain the petition. (i) The order impugned is an interim order in the Lavad Suit which is pending. The interim order does not decide the rights of the parties finally. (ii) Main Lavad Suit is pending and therefore, the interim order has not crystelised the rights. It is in the nature of interim arrangement. (iii) The various submissions sought to be raised by the petitioner, therefore, do not require in-dept consideration, as they are large open in the Lavad Suit. (iv) By impugned order, Exh.6 application is partly allowed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. (v) By directing that the first respondent Milk Federation/Union shall not accept the milk from the second defendant-the proposed Mandali, the Board of Nominee has balanced the rights of the parties, and economy interests of the petitioner society are taken care of.

Quite relevant it is to take note that like the petitioner herein-the Kasra Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited, another Mandali named Shivada Mahila Dudh Utpadak Mandali had filed Lavad Suit No. 2 of 2016 on same cause of action, on similar lines with similar contentions, against the very proposed Patelvas Mandali-the second defendant and respondent No.3 herein, which was granted permission. A similar kind of interim order was passed on 06.04.2016 by the Board of Nominees in the said Lavad Suit No. 2 of 2016. Against the said order dated 06.04.2014, a Special Civil Application No. 9480 of 2016 was filed, which came to be dismissed by this court by order dated 29.09.2016. 6.1 All the contentions of the parties in the Lavad Suit shall remain open to be considered by the Board of Nominees. With this clarification and with further direction to the Board of Nominees to expeditiously proceed with the Lavad Suit No. 231 of 2015 and decide the same within one year from the date of receipt of the writ of the present order, this petition is not liable to be entertained.

6.2 It is clarified that this court has not expressed on the merits of the case of parties in the Lavad Suit.

Qualified by the above observations and directions, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. No costs.