As per the bye laws, the objects of the Society were to carry on the trade of building, and of buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing land in accordance with Co operative principles and to establish and carry on social, re creative and educational work in companynection with its tenets and the Society was to have full power to do all things it deemed necessary or expedient, for the accomplishment of all objects specified in its bye laws, including the power to purchase, hold, sell, exchange, mortgage, rent, lease, sub lease, surrender, accept surrenders of and deal with lands of any tenure and to sell by installments and subject to any terms or companyditions and to make and guarantee advances to members for building or purchasing property and to erect, pull down, repair, alter or otherwise deal with any building thereon.
By judgment dated 16.1.1997, a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition essentially holding that the restriction in a bye law to the effect that membership would be limited only to persons belonging to the Parsi companymunity, would be an unfair restriction which can be validly dealt with by the appropriate authorities under Section 24 of the Act and Rule 12 2 of the Rules.
While the Society challenged the order of the Board of Nominees before the Gujarat State Co operative Societies Tribunal, Respondents 2 and 3 challenged the rejection of the request of Respondent No.2 to sell his plot to Respondent No.3, by way of an appeal before the Registrar of Co operative Societies under Section 24 of the Act.
Subsequently, the Board of Nominees vacated the interim order of injunction granted, inter alia, on the ground that the companystruction of a block of residential flats would number create disturbance and nuisance to the original members of the Society.
The Tribunal, in the revision filed by the Society, took the view in an interim order that the bye law restricting membership to Parsis was a restriction on the right to property and the right to alienate property and, therefore, was invalid in terms of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
A clarification was also sought for from the Society as to why it had refused permission to Respondent No.2 to transfer plot number7 belonging to him.
Thereafter, Respondent No.2 applied to the Society for permission to transfer his share to Respondent No.3.
This order was challenged by the Society and its Chairman before the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.
All persons who had signed the application for registration, are original members by virtue of bye law No.7.
The Society and its Chairman, challenged the said decision before a Division Bench, in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The said application was rejected by the Society, since according to it, the application was companytrary to the Act, Rules and the bye laws of the Society.
By judgment dated 23.7.1999, the said appeal was dismissed, more or less, companycurring with the reasoning and companyclusion of the learned Single Judge.
It was also held that such a bye law would amount to a restraint on alienation and hence would be hit by Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court thus rendered, is challenged in this appeal by Special Leave.
The Gujarat Act came into force on 1.5.1962.
129 of 1997.
6226 of 1996.
Certain lands were acquired.
