A-09

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

First Year’s First Intra Round

IN THE

Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat

Petition No. 546

Under Article 227 of The Constitution of India

In the Matter of

Anu Shrivastava…………………………………...Petitioner

v.

Dave Cooperative Society………………………………...Respondent

Written Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…….…………………………………………………………3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………...5
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………..…7
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………….8
5. ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………………...10
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………11
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………...13
Ø The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute:
(1) The Supervisory Jurisdiction of the High Court Applies to the State Commission
• Efficacy of Alternative Remedy in NCDRC
• Past High Court Orders on Appeals from the State Commission.
(2) The Petition is Maintainable Under Art. 227
• Article 227 Establishes a Test for Maintainability of such Petitions
• The Present Fact Matrix Satisfies the Test Under Article 227.
Ø Locus of the Petitioner is not Necessary for Asserting Rights to a New Site
(1) Enforcement of the State Commission’s Order.
• No Modification of the Decree can be done by an Executing Court
(2) Recourse Under Law Against Membership Cancellation
(3) High Court as a Recourse for Violation of Natural Justice
8. PRAYER….………………………………………………………………..................30

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

% Percent
§ Section
Art. Article
Anr. Another
Const. Constitution
CPA Consumer Protection Act
DC District Commission
DCS Dave Cooperative Society
GCSA Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
INR Indian Rupee
Ltd. Limited
Ms. Miss
NCDRC National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission
Ors. Others
PVT. Private
SCDRC State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission
Sec. Section
v. Versus

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Books
1. 7 DD Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India

Cases
1. Ajanta LLP v. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha, (2022) 5 SCC 449.
2. Auro Developers v. Mala Mukherjee, 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 5437.
3. Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 620.
4. Indusind Bank Ltd. v. Gadadhar Banerjee, 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 941
5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
6. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.
7. Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College v. University of Lucknow, (2009) 2 SCC 630.
8. Pranab Kumar Ray v. Reserve Bank of India, 1992 SCC OnLine Cal 206.
9. R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 119.
10. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675.
11. Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, 1986 Supp SCC 401.
12. Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational
Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538.

Constitution
1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

Statutes

1. Consumer Protection Act, 2019

2. Consumer Protection Act, 1986
3. Indian Contract Act, 1872, No. 9, Acts of Parliament 1872 (India).
4. Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, No. 10, Acts of Gujarat State Legislature
5. 1962 (India).

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner, Anu Shrivastava , has humbly approached the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of an Appeal, challenging the validity of
the order passed by the State Commission of Gujarat dated July 18, 2023.

The Respondent, the Dave Cooperative Society, has appeared to the Hon’ble High Court of
Gujarat in response to the petition.

The respondent would like to submit that the petition filed by the Petitioner, Ms. Anu
Shrivastava, is maintainable.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In the year 2002, Ms. Anu Shrivastava had recently graduated and taken up a job in
Abx Pharma in Vadodara. One day she saw an advertisement about a new housing
society called “R2D2 Housing Society” being formed by Dave Cooperative Society in
the outskirts of Vadodara & decided to become a member of Dave Cooperative Society
and buy a site. One of the bylaws stated that it is only for persons ordinarily residing in
Vadodara, and not owning a property of their own, who can become a member of the
society.
2. Anu becomes a member on 1.08.2002, and she also paid an amount of INR 1,50,000
for the allocation of the site, but she was not allotted a site for 12 years because of a
delay on the part of Dave Cooperative Society. he was finally allotted a site bearing No.
165 on 13.03.2014, and a sale deed was executed for the site in her favour. However
before she could take possession of the site and start construction of her house, she was
informed that the site had been illegally created and was not in accordance with the
town planning regulation, which meant that the area which she was allotted was actually
demarcated to be a park.
3. The Dave Cooperative Society did not allot her a different site, therefore in 2016 he
was finally allotted a site bearing No. 165 on 13.03.2014, and a sale deed was executed
for the site in her favour. The District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint in part
and directed DCS to refund the amount paid by Anu at an interest of 9% per annum.
She approached the Gujarat state Commission as she was dissatisfied with the decision
because she did not want a refund but allotment of land that she could call her own. The
State Commission on 15.02.2019 allowed the appeal and directed Dave Cooperative
Society to allot her any alternate site and also pay compensation of INR 5,00,000 lakhs
for mental agony and INR 10,000 for litigation costs.
Dave Cooperative Society refused to comply with the orders of the state commission,
thus Anu filed an execution proceeding under the provision of Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 before the District Consumer Forum on 14.09.2019, praying that Dave
Consumer Society allot her a site.
4. During the pendency of the Execution proceeding Dave Cooperative Society cancelled
Anu’s membership by a way of notice stating that she committed fraud. DCS also filed
an application before District Commission seeking dismissal of the petition but it was

6
 quashed. Ultimately the District Commission order DCS to comply with the orders of
the State Commission
5. DCS goes before the State commission to appeal the order of the District Commission
State Commission by order date 18.07.2023 upholds the order of the District Consumer
Forum, however the State Commission observed that it was not possible for Anu to be
allotted a site in R2D2 as all the sites were sold out but she could be allotted a different
site in George Layout upon her paying a revised price was would be at least 20 times
the price she originally paid as she bought the allotted site in 2004 and now it was 2023.
6. Anu was shocked by this order, thus she decided to approach the High Court by a way
of. Petition under Article 227 challenging the order of the State Commission.

7
 ISSUES RAISED

The Petitioner humbly asks the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat to decide:

1. Whether the High Court of Gujarat has jurisdiction to entertain the present issue.
2. Whether the Petitioner has the locus to insist on a new site since her membership had
been cancelled

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. The appeal to the High Court against an order passed by the State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission is maintainable.
It is submitted that the appeal filed in the Hon’ble High Court of India is maintainable as
the order passed by the State Commission Dispute Redressal Commission can be
challenged in the High Court under Article 227 which grants High Courts superintendence
over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories over which it exercises its
jurisdiction. Article 227 also grants High Courts supervisory jurisdiction over all the
subordinate courts in its jurisdiction.

2. Locus of the Petitioner is Not Necessary for Asserting Rights to a New Site

The order that was passed by State Commission has already attained finality therefore it
is enforced under sec. 71 of Consumer Protection Act. The issue of locus does not apply
here as the decree by the State Commission dated 15.02.2019 is already in her favour and
is independent of any question of membership, therefore there is no point in establishing
locus as the claim to allot her a site has already attained finality .

A decree cannot be changed by an executing court, but the State Commission violated it
by changing the original order and ordering Anu to pay a revised price for the allotment
of a different site.

Anu’s membership was cancelled by the form of a letter which violated the principle of
Audi Alteram Partum which is a principle of natural justice . The petitioner never had the
chance to make her point and represent herself in front of the respectable authority and
her membership was cancelled on false allegations of fraud

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

3. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has Jurisdiction to Entertain the Present
Dispute

The issue deals with the maintainability of appeal filed by the petitioner, Anu
Shrivastava, in the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat under the Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.1

This goes to show that High Courts have superintendence and jurisdiction over all the
courts and tribunals which are in the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and
therefore the appeal brought by the Petitioner, Anu Shrivastava, challenging the order of
the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, under Article 227 is maintainable in
the High Court.

1.1The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court Applies to State Consumer

Dispute Redressal Commission (State Commission)

Article 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution are part of the basic structure of the
constitution as elaborated in the Keshavananda Bharti case2. While the jurisdiction of
the aforementioned articles cannot be ousted, other courts and tribunals may perform
a supplemental role in discharging the powers that are conferred by Article 226, 227
and 32 of the Constitution.3

The tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution have
the competence to test the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or rule
however the decisions of these tribunals will be subjected to scrutiny by a Division
Bench of the high Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal falls in. This

1
INDIA CONST. art. 227, cl 1
2
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
3
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.
10
 arrangement ensures a dual tier system where the tribunals play a supplementary role
in adjudication, but the powers of superintendence of High Courts over all the other
courts in the territorial jurisdiction remains intact.

In Ibrat Faizan v Omaxe Buildhom PVT LTD4 it was stated by the bench that
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), a tribunal, and its
orders are subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, where in the absence of
alternative statutory remedy , a petition in High Court challenging the order of the
NCDRC would be maintainable, however the High Court could only exercise its
jurisdiction when all the criteria of Article 227 of the Constitution of India are met
with.

The above-mentioned case shows that an appeal made to High Court challenging the
order of the tribunal within its jurisdiction is maintainable under Article 227 of the
Indian Constitution.

The tribunals set up under the Articles 323-A and 323-B of the constitution are
creatures of statutes and in no case can claim to be of the same status as High Courts,
have parity with the High Courts or be substitutes to the High Courts.5

The State Commission falls within the purview of High Court as it is a tribunal which
is in the territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court, therefore the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court applies to the State Commission, therefore the
petitioner challenging the order of the State Commission in the High Court is within
the jurisdiction of High Court and is maintainable in the above-mentioned High Court

1.1.1 Efficacy of Alternative Remedy in NCDRC

In Auro Developers V. Mala Mukherjee6, the Kolkata High Court exercising

power under Article 227 of the Constitution is under supervisory jurisdiction. The
said power is to be used or exercised in an appropriate case when an alternate
remedy existed. The High Court’s impose a restriction on themselves to relegate
the parties to resort to the efficacious remedy provided under the statute. The High

4
Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 620.
5
R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 119.
6
Auro Developers v. Mala Mukherjee, 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 5437.
11
 Court is not stripped of its power under article 227 to exercise superintendence
jurisdiction over all the courts & tribunals in its jurisdiction.

Further it is also stated under the judgement that the jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution, in certain circumstances as mentioned in Virudhunagar Hindu
Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society7, can be
invoked even if there is an alternative remedy available. By looking at the
aforementioned cases the order of the State Commission can also be set aside if
the appeal in High Court under article 227 is stated to be maintainable as in the
present case the petitioner has under extraordinary situation appealed in the High
Court as the State Commission modified the original order, going outside of its
jurisdiction while doing so.

In Committee and Management & Anr. -Vs- Vice Chancellor & Ors.8 ,the bench
stated that the availability of an alternative remedy by itself may not be a ground
for High court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under certain conditions which
are iterated in the judgment of Pranab Kumar Ray v. Reserve Bank of India9.

In Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin

Educational Society10, it is said that phrase "near total bar" means that in cases
where remedies are available under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the exercise
of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is severely restricted or limited,
however in the case of Pranab Kumar Ray v. Reserve Bank of India11, it is stated
that in spite of existence of alternative remedy the power under Article 227 of the
Constitution can be invoked in exceptional circumstances if there is a manifest
injustice either in law or procedure.

In the submitted case Anu Shrivastava, the petitioner, can invoke Art. 227 as there
has been a manifest injustice in procedure as the respondent, Dave Cooperative
Society refused to comply with the given order by the State Commission and, and

7
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538.
8
Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College v. University of Lucknow, (2009) 2 SCC 630
9
Pranab Kumar Ray v. Reserve Bank of India, 1992 SCC OnLine Cal 206.
10
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538.
11
Pranab Kumar Ray v. Reserve Bank of India, 1992 SCC OnLine Cal 206.
12
 during the execution proceeding the State Commission went outside its
jurisdiction when it modified the original order.

The existence of an alternative remedy by itself may not be a ground for high
court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under certain circumstances which are as
follows: —

1. in a case where such alternative remedy would not be an efficacious one

2. When an order has been passed by an authority is without jurisdiction

3. When an order has been passed by an authority in violation of the principles of

natural justice.”

The criteria given by the aforementioned case are for situations which are
exceptional in nature where there has been a violation of principles of natural
justice or when the order passed by the authority, in this case the state
commission, is without jurisdiction or when the alternate remedy would not be
efficacious.

1.1.2 Past High Court Orders on Appeals from the State Commission.

High Courts have in the past passed orders on appeals from state commissions as in
the case of Committee and Management & Anr. -Vs- Vice Chancellor & Ors.12
Availability of an alternative remedy by itself may not be a ground for the High
Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. It may exercise its writ jurisdiction
despite the fact that an alternative remedy is available, inter alia, in a case where
the same would not be an efficacious one. Further-more, when an order has been
passed by an authority without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural
justice, the superior courts shall not refuse to exercise their jurisdiction although
there exists an alternative remedy.

12
Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College v. University of Lucknow, (2009) 2 SCC 630.
13
 Entertainment of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
cannot be denied merely because of availability of alternative remedy by way of
revision under Section 21(b) of the said Act as the legality of the impugned order
is under challenge in this application on the ground of competence of the
Commission to pass such order. Or in other words, when the jurisdiction of the
Commission to proceed with the said complaint case and/or to pass the impugned
order is under challenge, the High Court cannot refuse to entertain an application
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India merely because of availability of
alternative remedy by revision before National Forum. In support of such
submission he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Committee and Management & Anr. v. Vice Chancellor & Ors13. reported
in (2009) 2 SCC 630.
On perusal of the said decision this Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has decided therein that availability of an alternative remedy by itself may not be a
ground for High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction.

Therefore we can say our case is maintainable by persuasive value.

1. In a case where such alternative remedy would not be an efficacious one.
2. When an order has been passed by an authority without jurisdiction.
3. When an order has been passed by an authority in violation of the principles of
natural justice.

1.2 The Petition is Maintainable Under Art. 227

It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable in the present
fact case as submitted under Indusind Bank ltd v. Gangadhar Banerjee14, the hon’ble
High Court under Article 227 cannot refuse to entertain an application merely because
of availability of alternative remedy. Therefore, the petitioner can approach the High
Court under the special condition when an order has been passed by an authority
without jurisdiction.

13
Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College v. University of Lucknow, (2009) 2 SCC 630.
14
Indusind Bank Ltd. v. Gadadhar Banerjee, 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 941
14
 1.2.1 Article 227 Establishes a Test for Maintainability of Such Petitions.
In Paragraph 24 of the judgment of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors 15
it is stated that “The difference between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
was well brought out in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai16 2. Proceedings
under Article 226 are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while
proceedings under Article 227 of the Const. are not original but only supervisory.
Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the
Government of India Act, 1915 excepting that the power of superintendence has
been extended by this article to tribunals as well. Though the power is akin to that
of an ordinary court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be
used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the
subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for
correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave
injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a
jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it
does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction
though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamount to overstepping
the limits of jurisdiction.

The order given by State Commission on 18.07.2023 ordering Dave Cooperative

society to allot the petitioner an alternate site upon Anu paying the revised price is
a clear breach of the general principles of the execution proceedings which states
that an order given by any court or tribunal cannot be modified or changed during
the judgment of an execution proceeding however, because the State Commission
modified the order, therefore article 227 can be invoked to revise the judgment of
the State Commission on the High Court as the State commission assumed the
jurisdiction which it did not have and overstepped the limits of its jurisdiction.

15
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675.
16
Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, 1986 Supp SCC 401.
15
 1.2.2 The Present Fact Matrix Satisfies the Test Under Article 227.
The tests to prove the maintainability of Article 227 as mentioned in the judgment
of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors17 are as follows:-
i. The court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not
have
ii. The court has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have,
such failure occasioning a failure of justice
iii. The jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner
which tantamount to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.

The State Commission on order dating 18.07.2023 breached the first and third point of the test.

The state commission, as the execution court, assumed a jurisdiction which it did not have
and overstepped the limits of its jurisdiction by modifying the original order dated
15.02.2019 and breached the general principles of execution proceedings which state that the
original order of the court cannot be modified. Thus we can say that the petitioner went to the
High Court under Article 227 to use its supervisory powers and allow her the original
judgment of 15.02.2019 which the state commission modified. The modification of the
judgment by the State Commission caused grave injustice hence Article 227 is invoked to
exercise its supervisory powers over the judgment of the State Commission.

4. Locus of the Petitioner is Not Necessary for Asserting Rights to a New Site

The order passed by State Commission has attained finality therefore it is enforced under
sec. 71 of Consumer Protection Act. The issue of locus does not apply here as the decree
by the State Commission dated 15.02.2019 is already in her favour and is independent of
any question of membership, therefore there is no point of establishing locus as the claim
to allot her a site has already attained finality .

1.3 Enforcement of the State Commission’s Order.

17
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675.

16
 Order that attain finality are enforced under section 71 of CPA which says “Every
order made by a District Commission, State Commission or the National Commission
shall be enforced by it in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a Court in a
suit before it and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, as far as may be, applicable, subject to the
modification that every reference therein to the decree shall be construed as reference
to the order made under this Act.” 18

Ever since the order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in the
petitioner’s side has not been challenged by the Dave Cooperative Society, that is the
respondent, therefore the order is enforceable under Section 71 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, hence the order given by the State Commission on 15.02.2019
is enforceable in the same manner as if it were a decree and the provisions of Order
XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable.

1.3.1 No Modification of the Decree can be done by an Executing Court

The district commission and the state commission were executing courts from
14.09.2019 as the petitioner filed an appeal in the District commission to execute
the orders of the state commission dated 15.02.2019, therefore they exercised the
powers of a civil court which was executing a decree under order XXI of the
Code of Criminal Procedures. As mentioned under Order XXI of CPC,
“Modification of consent judgment/decree is not permissible when not vitiated by
fraud, misrepresentation or a patent or obvious mistake. Application seeking
modification of consent judgment/decree filed under Section 152 must be
dismissed, even on considering such application as one under proviso to Order 23
Rule 3 r/w Section 151, when it did not meet the requirements of law, Ajanta
LLP v. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha19”,
However, in the execution proceedings of State Commission, it modified the
original order and passed the order to pay a revised price for an altogether
different site in a new housing complex. Therefore, the State Commission went

18
The Consumer Protection Act, § 72, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India)
19
Ajanta LLP v. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha, (2022) 5 SCC 449.
17
 outside of its jurisdiction and modified an order passed by state commission and
modified the original judgment which was given on 15.02.2019. Hence it was
maintainable for the petitioner to move to high court to appeal a petition under
article 227, as the state commission while executing the order went outside of its
jurisdiction and modified an order which was not meant to be modified.
Hence, the appeal made by the respondent to prove the locus for getting a new site
does not arise since the new site has already been granted to the petitioner by the
judgment of State Commission dated on 15.02.2019 to allot her any alternate site,
INR 5,00,00 for mental agony and INR 10,000 for litigation costs.

Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act states that, “"decree" means the formal
expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it,
conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the
matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall
be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any
question within section 144, but shall not include
(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or
(b) any order of dismissal for default.”20

The above mentioned section states the definition of decree in which it is stated
that a decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the
suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely
disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.
As per Section 38(9)(e) of the Consumer Protection, 2019, corresponding to
Section 13(4)(v) of the erstwhile Act of 1986, a DC. has the same power vested in
a Civil Court, under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for issuance of a
Commission.
Therefore, the same limitation of a civil court will be present here, hence the order
in any way cannot be modified.

Petitioner is no longer insisting on a site as she already is entitled to it as she

already has a decree in her favor given to her by the state commission dated

20
The Consumer Protection Act, § 2, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India)
18
 15.02.2019 which is given to her as a replacement to the original site she bought,
which was an illegal site to begin with, that caused mental agony to her and
proved the malicious intentions of Dave Cooperation Society. The petitioner now
is independent of any membership of Dave Cooperative Society whatsoever,
hence there is no need to prove locus in front of the court for her to insist upon a
new site as she is already entitled to a site, as the claim has already attained
finality and only the execution of the given matter is remaining.

The petitioner’s membership was also cancelled due to alleged reasons during
execution proceedings and not at the time when the original decree was being
passed, which proves the mala fide intentions on the part of the respondent, Dave
Cooperative Society, as they had been acting in bad faith all this time starting
from allotting the petitioner an illegal site and making her wait for almost 14 years
just to allot a site. They also were non-compliant toward the judgment of State
commission dated 15.02.2019 proving they were acting in bad faith all this time.

1.4 Recourse Under Law Against Membership Cancellation.

It is mentioned under § 23 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act (GCSA), 1962
that an equal opportunity shall be given to a member to let them have an opportunity
to be heard.
“Provided that the Registrar shall, before making an order of removal give the person
an opportunity of being heard.”21
However, in the present case the petitioner during the pendency of the execution
proceedings was notified by a letter that her membership was cancelled and she was
no longer eligible to have a site allotted to her proved the mala fide intention of the
respondent and clearly demonstrates the mental agony that DCS put the petitioner
through to not allot her a site that she paid for.

1.5 High Court as Recourse for Violation of Natural Justice.

The cancellation of the petitioner’s membership by the form of a letter violated the
principle of Audi Alteram Partum which is a principle of natural justice . The
petitioner never had the chance to make her point and represent herself in front of the

21
The Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act § 23, No. X, Acts of Gujarat State Legislature, 1962 (India)
19
respectable authority and her membership was cancelled on false allegations of fraud.
The right to be heard was not given to Anu Shrivastava, the petitioner, and therefore
under these extraordinary situations left with no other recourse, she went to appeal in
the High Court under article 227 to exercise the supervisory powers of the HC to
support her case and help her get the allotted site for which she prayed for the entire
time.

20
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the questions raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Petitioner respectfully requests the High Court of Gujarat to:
1. Declare that the Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute.
2. Declare that the Petitioner does not need the locus to insist upon a new site as her
membership had never been cancelled legally.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Counsel for the Petitioner (Anu Shrivastava)

21